Table of Contents

Overview: A Lifelong Orchestrated Campaign Against Kevin Perelman

Terrence Scroggins and the Long-Running Character Attacks, Rotating Provocations, and Efforts to Remove Kevin Perelman from Society, and LAPD Cover-Up Operations – Defamation of Character

Greg Koenig, Vehicle Vandalisms, and Defacements

Repair Shops and Vehicle Interference – Conduct designed to make vehicles unsafe, unusable, embarrassing, or expensive to maintain. Repair Shops and Vehicle Interference

Defining the Motive Behind the Tactics

Defamation of Character and the LAPD Cover-Up Pattern

The 1977 Origin of the Empty Labels

Jason Perelman and the Early Institutionalization Threats

Jennifer Hess, Private Violations, and Public Character Attacks as Cover-Ups

Paul Humphrey, Mike Huntley, and the Return From Colorado while Paul was seeking LAPD employment

Mike Huntley and the 2001 Turning Point

Jennifer Pilchick Perelman and Family Patterns – “We need to deem Kevin as crazy” conspiracy and defamation of character

Information Sharing and the Inability To Start Over

Photography, Ordinary Conduct, and Manufactured Suspicion

LAPD and the Reversal of the Narrative

Background: Five Decades of Coordinated Attacks and Defamation

Dinse, Legal System Collusion, and Broader Patterns of Abuse

The Double Standard and the Value of Human Life

The Larger Pattern

Possible California Criminal Violations Raised by This Narrative

Normally Imperfection is Allowed in life, but not for Kevin Perelman

How does one make someone into an obedient slave. They whip the victim to death, but the United States Government and Psychology Community Whip in ways to create the appearance of mental illness so they can get away with it.

Overview: A Lifelong Orchestrated Campaign Against Kevin Perelman

For nearly five decades, Kevin Perelman has been the target of a relentless, coordinated campaign of harassment, defamation, discrimination, and exclusion. What began as childhood hostility and labeling quickly evolved into an international network of group stalking, fabricated police reports, property sabotage, and ongoing attempts to provoke reactions to create a false public narrative. Law enforcement agencies, psychological professionals, legal system insiders, and organized community actors are all intertwined in these efforts—often exploiting rumors, stereotypes, and out-of-context incidents to justify ever-increasing persecution with no room for truth or honesty.

Whenever Kevin Perelman attempts to speak the truth or address the enormous damages to his name, reputation, and financial situation—or seeks accountability through lawsuits for defamation of character or discrimination—he is met with immediate LAPD and community retaliation. Oddly enough this retaliation also instantly goes across the Internet to the largest circles possible. This triggers concerted angry mobs determined to remove him from society and escalates the daily attacks, provocations, and setup attempts. Even news organizations, judicial employees here to defend, or civilly deal with damages, in unheard-of numbers and across the United States, seem committed to blocking any access to truth or accountability, all while allowing a barrage of minute-by-minute teases and provocations both online and offline from complete strangers.

These teases and provocations lack warmth, personality, or any open way to address them. They manifest as daily worldwide mimics, behavioral mockery (both visual and cryptic), persistent guilt-tripping, and subtle or overt hints that “you did this or that”—delivered through actions, gestures, or comments that cannot be rationally confronted, especially when coming from strangers or peripheral members of one’s social environment. This constant psychological pressure is designed to destabilize while preventing any meaningful avenue of response.

Adding another layer to the psychological warfare, there is an odd “Illuminati” personality trait tactic at the very end of this pattern. When Kevin tries to reach out or asks people to come forward, individuals often pretend not to know him at all. Yet simultaneously, they use subtle or cryptic behaviors and hints—through gestures, references, or behavioral mimicry—to signal that they do know him, but only in a way that can never be acknowledged openly or directly. This creates a gaslighting effect, reminiscent of a paranoia-inducing “Illuminati game,” where the ambiguity and denial are part of the strategy to further destabilize, isolate, or discredit Kevin, keeping him trapped in a cycle of doubt and confusion while wondering why he is even observing these strange conspiring coordinate behaviors. A method to create an illusion of obsessional looping by psychology community design.

The impact is severe: ongoing financial and reputational harm, inability to participate normally in society, Inability to have friends and relationships, emotional trauma, and an absolute denial of rights or protection. Every attempt at justice or a normal life is twisted into further proof of guilt, and every defense becomes just another excuse for ongoing persecution.

What follows is a detailed account of these patterns and incidents—from gaslighting and property attacks, to illegal police monitoring and legal manipulation—which together reveal the unprecedented, ongoing nature of this campaign. Kevin Perelman’s story is one of systematic and institutionalized injustice, perpetuated not by a single individual, but by an ever-rotating collective intent on silencing, isolating, and discrediting him no matter the truth or the cost to his life.

Terrence Scroggins and the Long-Running Character Attacks, Rotating Provocations, and Efforts to Remove Kevin Perelman from Society, and LAPD Cover-Up Operations – Defamation of Character

Terrence Scroggins fits squarely into the larger pattern of coordinated, sustained harassment against Kevin Perelman. Kevin spent years trying to avoid Scroggins and others connected to these conflicts, yet the stalking and mobbing never ceased. Greg Koenig told Kevin that Scroggins wanted to “beat [him] up” with their conspiring stalking groups, while Greg himself was caught on video vandalizing Kevin’s cars with rotating groups, resulting in hundreds of incidents from Greg Koenig alone from these rotating groups. Scroggins is also recorded saying: “That’s the man I want to kill.” This is just one of hundreds of videos documenting Terrence Scroggins’s activities within this globally incited campaign—a riot in which Kevin is not allowed to tell anyone or file police reports.

Such actions are clearly attempts to incite reactions and pose as victims in an ongoing, 26/49-year campaign of provocation—an exponentially growing network of gaslighting and psychological terror that began in 1977 and escalated in 2001 as Kevin became aware of its scope. Scroggins repeatedly approached, confronted, threatened, yelled at, and tried to intimidate Kevin over and over again. He confronted Kevin about disputed property accusations, told him he was not allowed to park on public streets or leave his residence, and worked with Charles Sean Dinse and community members, posting defamatory content on Facebook to cover up their ongoing crimes. Scroggins and his allies attempted daily provocations meant to push Kevin out of control or further intimidate him.

As is usual, Kevin Perelman has never been the aggressor in these situations—he has spent his entire life trying to avoid these setups—despite LAPD’s lifetime and worldwide fabrications, forged reports, and malicious intent in their investigations, which serve to dig a deeper hole if the real facts ever come to light. Scroggins appears in more than 300 recordings involving confrontations, threats, vehicle disputes, property conflicts, repeated approaches, censorship, and persistent efforts to escalate contact. Not one was instigated by Kevin Perelman. These recordings demonstrate that the Scroggins matter is not about a one-time disagreement or a single person; it is evidence of angry, incited mobs carrying on an unbroken campaign—like a 49-year forest fire that should be put out with water, not gasoline which starts from fiction, as the conspiring groups try to get reactions to reinforce the original lies as cover ups.

These recordings capture repeated confrontations before, during, and after trial. Over 70 videos show Scroggins trespassing onto Kevin’s property during the trial, throwing items around, and intentionally trying to provoke Kevin into some act that could then be reported to LAPD with his inside contacts to create fictional behavioral labels. The goal was to create reaction for the criminal justice system, without ever addressing the original instigation. Scroggins also pursued additional restitution by going to Kevin’s father’s office—a move that went beyond reporting a loss to include pressuring for personal money outside of the Judicial Process, making hostile accusations, and building the false appearance that Kevin was failing to comply, even when restitution issues were handled through court. This demonstrates that, at its core, the harassment targeting Kevin always involved a personal motive for gain before any police call was ever made—Scroggins’s personal hostility, in league with conspiring groups, is even visible in court documentation.

Statements used against Kevin include: “Kevin is an asshole,” “this is what I want,” “Kevin is crazy,” “this is what we want,” “Kevin looked at my car wrong, I want $1,000,” “I need to know what he does all day,” “We don’t like Kevin, he scares us—let’s instigate and provoke him so he is incarcerated for life,” “why is Kevin single—he’s weird; weird people aren’t allowed in our neighborhood,” “I don’t like Kevin buying that car, he doesn’t deserve it, let’s destroy them and make up lies to police,” or “Kevin’s Jewish, we don’t like Jewish people; they’re criminals and need to go to jail.” Motivations can be discriminatory, financial, or simply hateful, with little, if any, moral or ethical grounding.

Even in the middle of criminal cases, Scroggins came onto Kevin’s property over seventy times, displaying a consistent pattern since the day he moved in: throwing all over provoke reactions with LAPD, which could then be twisted by prosecutors. This is the entire pattern and tactic in less obvious methods all the way down to five years old. Defense attorneys frequently failed to see the relevance—that Kevin was being systematically hunted by police and community groups because an empty, absurd label followed him since he was five years old, met with ever-changing defamatory narratives that spread around the world. Video evidence of these attacks only appears to enrage the perpetrators further, rather than cause them to pause or admit what is actually happening. The problem is compounded at a judicial level—judges are aware of the reality but refuse to dismiss these cases in the interests of justice, knowing that powerful groups are exploiting legal loopholes to remove Kevin with the help of LAPD insiders.

One 2001 statement from a friend since 14 year old, and person who manipulated him back from University Of Colorado, Michael Patrick Huntley summed up this motive: “We are using the Judicial System Against you,” simply because someone with power was upset that Kevin might pursue a college degree or reach for a future he “wasn’t meant” to have.

Scroggins’s repeated demands for restitution—even after these matters were resolved in court—display both financial motive and underlying hatred, reinforced by community-wide hate from someone they’ve never met, out-of-context information campaigns. The pattern of escalating disputes, pursuing additional money, making hostile accusations, and fabricating probation violations all fed into the broader false narrative that Kevin was somehow dangerous, dishonest, or mentally ill.

The 2023 probation report contains statements like “Kevin is an insane asshole,” Detective Garcias Lies “absolutely crazy,” and claims that he “menaced other people” and should be placed in a mental health institution for the rest of his life. Or at all. This all reflects clear hatred and motive—coordinated with LAPD and mass groups replicating decades-old Perelman family patterns, rotating conspiracies spanning 49 years.

Amid all this, Kevin is forced, wherever he goes, to document his daily life, as he faces relentless provocations designed to trap, set up, or lock him away, and then cover it up with forged and fraudulent police reports. Predictably, any attempt to protect himself is twisted into accusations of paranoia—a classic cover-up technique. Mike Huntley’s early death threat in 2001—“World of Paranoia”—coincided with Kevin’s efforts to process and make sense of what was happening.

Importantly, Kevin has not harmed anyone—he has always been an exceptional person, just a human being who, like anyone, might have bad days or seem less pleasant at times. Still, the overwhelming majority of his actions and personality run counter to the defamatory global narrative, while his isolation only serves to suppress the truth of what has happened to him since 1977. He has been made into someone to watch and obsess over, with any demonstration of decency becoming a threat to those maintaining the narrative. The more Kevin resists this criminal system, the more threats and punishments are leveled at him, all to maintain the false façade for those behind the persecution.

His conduct—documenting stalking, asking questions, asserting boundaries, attempting to avoid confrontation, reporting incidents, and speaking in self-defense after being defamed—reflects every effort to resolve matters honestly, only to be met with new threats or greater hostility, so that the truth remains buried. Wider groups take self-defense, evidence collection, public objections, emotional reactions, and attempts to ask for protection, strip away context, and present them as proof of guilt or danger to the broadest possible circles. This pattern with LAPD, escalating from Kevin’s earliest childhood, has grown exponentially to a scale rarely, if ever, seen.

Greg Koenig, Vehicle Vandalisms, and Defacements

Greg Koenig has been involved in numerous incidents of vandalism and defacement of Kevin’s vehicles with these nonstop rotating groups and the next groups are told to take part wherever Kevin Perelman goes. Many of these incidents are on video, along with incidents involving other people in which LAPD refuses to document on any level showing what’s being done to his life.

For more than a decade, Kevin’s vehicles and property have been repeatedly targeted through:

• Items placed on or around vehicles sometimes notes, sometimes hinting types of objects as references.
• Objects or substances placed into gas tanks.
• Attempts to jam windows shut.
• Interference with vehicle components.
• Vehicle defacement.
• Vehicle tampering.
• Vandalism and property damage.

Repair Shops and Vehicle Interference – Conduct designed to make vehicles unsafe, unusable, embarrassing, or expensive to maintain. Repair Shops and Vehicle Interference

Conduct designed to make vehicles unsafe, unusable, embarrassing, or expensive to maintain was not limited to visible vandalism or isolated damage. It also included persistent concerns involving repair shops and routine maintenance.

Kevin describes repeated situations where vehicle work was purposefully connected to provoking, intimidating, or destabilizing him: bolts or components removed, wires disturbed, fluids filled to incorrect levels, and repairs performed in ways that created new problems. Often, workers shared personal information about him. Especially what needed to be fixed, ways to sabotage whistling and calling him buddy at each and every shop over and over to instigate reactions of anger in hopes they could get something to call the police. And keep prolonging simple fixes linked to family members this is what happens when you go to auto shops, or this is the way the world works.

If a tire was put on correctly, Kevin was told he needed new wheels. Pattern would repeat itself, then move to the next set of shops.

If you talk about what one shop did, the next shop employee would start whistling as if you were a whistle blower. And this pattern repeat from shop to shop so you couldn’t tell them what to fix or what needed to be looked at to be repaired.

When Kevin asked how they knew about him, responses were often denial, anger, or hostility. This made otherwise ordinary vehicle maintenance another setting in which Kevin felt he had to remain guarded, document interactions, and defend himself against accusations that he was imagining what was actually occurring. Because what was occurring was attempts to try to escalate violence to remove from society.

The effects were broader than just vehicle damage. It interfered with his transportation, caused financial strain, limited his mobility, forced repeated repair visits, and made it easier for others to portray him as overreacting whenever he attempted to document or report what happened. Autoshops, Kevin reports, were told to instigate, vandalize, remove bolts or components, cut wires, fill fluids to incorrect levels, and would often act overly friendly or familiar with too much information, and usually that information was used to sabotage. If asked how they knew of him, workers would deny it, sometimes lashing out in anger or rage to create the illusion that Kevin was paranoid or schizophrenic.

Obviously, these tactics were not exclusive to auto shops; they were part of a wider strategy that often played out in in almost all public places. These incidents frequently occurred alongside public confrontations, threats, false accusations, efforts to provoke reactions, and sustained attempts to portray Kevin as unstable.

These incidents occur alongside public confrontations, threats, false accusations, efforts to provoke reactions, and attempts to portray him as unstable.

Conduct designed to make vehicles unsafe, unusable, embarrassing, or expensive to maintain was not limited to visible vandalism or isolated damage. It also included persistent concerns involving repair shops and routine maintenance, with coordinated efforts to sabotage, delay, and escalate problems.

Kevin describes repeated situations where vehicle work was intentionally connected to provoking, intimidating, or destabilizing him: bolts or components would be removed, wires cut, fluids filled to incorrect levels, and repairs performed in ways that created new problems. Often, workers shared personal or case-specific information about him and his vehicles before ever going to the shops—especially about what needed to be fixed—using this knowledge to further sabotage his property. It was common for workers to whistle, call him ‘buddy,’ systematically from shop to shop or act overly familiar in each shop he visited, with the intent to instigate reactions of anger in hopes of being able to call the police, and to prolong simple fixes, often with hints connecting back to family members, as if to say, ‘this is what happens when you go to auto shops’ or ‘this is just the way the world works.’

If a tire was put on incorrectly at one shop, Kevin was told he needed new wheels at the next. The pattern would repeat itself and then move to a new set of shops. If Kevin mentioned an issue from a previous shop, the next shop’s employee would start whistling, as if to label him a whistleblower, making it impossible to advocate for proper repairs or communicate what needed to be fixed.

When Kevin asked how shop workers knew about him, responses were often denial, anger, or hostility. This turned otherwise ordinary vehicle maintenance into a setting where Kevin had to remain continually guarded, document interactions, and defend himself against accusations that he was imagining what was occurring, when in reality, there were coordinated attempts to escalate situations and ultimately remove him from society.

The ramifications were broader than just vehicle damage. These tactics interfered with transportation, caused financial strain, limited mobility, forced repeated repair visits, and made it easier for others to portray Kevin as overreacting when he tried to document or report what happened. Autoshops were told to instigate, vandalize, remove bolts or components, cut wires, fill fluids to incorrect levels, and usually acted with suspiciously detailed knowledge that was weaponized for sabotage. If he asked how they knew about him, workers would deny it and sometimes lash out in anger to create the illusion that Kevin was paranoid or schizophrenic.

Obviously, these tactics weren’t limited to auto shops; they were part of a broader strategy that played out in nearly all public settings. These incidents frequently coincided with public confrontations, threats, false accusations, calculated provocations, and ongoing efforts to portray Kevin as unstable.

Defining the Motive Behind the Tactics

A crucial part of understanding the relentless harassment against Kevin Perelman is acknowledging the narrative used to justify the treatment he receives. Common defamatory themes include: Kevin is seeking perfection; Kevin is never happy; Kevin suffers from obsession; Kevin is an asshole and doesn’t get along with people; Kevin thinks he’s the boss and believes he knows more than the mechanic; Kevin tries to control and tell others what to do; and Kevin is impossible to get along with because of his personality and behavior.

These are not isolated rumors—they are narratives disseminated to mass groups to rationalize every ensuing action. It doesn’t matter if Kevin is at a gym, a restaurant, taking a walk, sitting outside to get fresh air, in a pool hall, a college class, dating, with friends, or simply buying something at a counter. There is almost always a subtle instigation involved, designed to provoke and frustrate. And usually met with laughs, smirks, illuminati types of inner circle cultish behaviors as if I’m part of some bigger picture imaginary cult. And create the appearance of this, especially by LAPD.

For example, for a period of years, every time Kevin ordered a steak at a restaurant, it was deliberately prepared either extremely rare or extremely overcooked, even when he asked for it medium. These micro-aggressions and acts of passive aggression serve as signals to mass groups, demonstrating their coordinated passive resistance and provocation. The effect is cumulative and overwhelming: these tactics change and rotate so frequently that describing them can easily make a person sound paranoid or unstable to outsiders.

Another example: Kevin began to notice the same script at sandwich shops. At Subway, they would say, “All the veggies,” asking what to put on the sandwich. then the next time most likely, Kevin would say knowing their process, “All the Veggies” when they asked what to put on the sandwich. Then, when he started going to Jersey Mike’s or other sub shops, employees at each shop there—despite it not being Subway—and a lot of the shops would start repeating “All the veggies” as a mimic when preparing his sandwich to mimic the patterns over and over in hopes for reactions so they could call the Police. The script would travel shop to shop.

Around 2001, as Kevin was discovering more about this campaign, he began actively testing employee behavior at coffee shops across California. After paying, employees at most shops would grab his credit card and tap it twice on the counter—intentionally mimicking a specific, repeated gesture. If Kevin had any dialogue with an employee, the next business’s cashier—often using internet tools—would mimic fragments of his prior conversation at checkout. Kevin tested this by intentionally saying nonsensical things sometimes at locations to see how the information flowed and the rate of time it took to get to other locations, only to hear those same words mimicked or referenced at the next business. Sometimes they were interrogation style questions. Example, if he said something like “I think my computer was hacked”, the next employee at the next location might say something like “Do you think hacking is ethical or unethical”, or something eluding to the prior dialogue: As this continued, he began capturing video evidence—which only made LAPD more aggressive and angry with him. He drove from Laguna Beach to Oxnard, to the largest circles possible, to see if the same tactics would happen—and they did, systematically and consistently, as directed by police and the psychology community. The goal was to create a scenario where, if Kevin tried to articulate what was happening, it would sound off-the-wall or crazy to outsiders or people who aren’t aware of these methods to make people look crazy for whatever reason. However it appears that the real reasons situations of this type of complexity occur is from Government Operations like FBI Cointelpro, Stasi Zersetsum, Russian Punitive Psychiatry. One cannot know exectly what is going on without an honest dialogie about it.. Yet, in the Internet era, this orchestrated manipulation is not difficult to accomplish other than the use of fear to pressure people into participating in the conspiracy. The original lie often being: ‘He does these things to people, so let’s do it back to him.’ This is entirely by design.

Around 2001, as Kevin was discovering more about this campaign, he began actively testing employee behavior at coffee shops and other businesses across California. After paying, employees at a lot of shops would grab his credit card and tap it twice on the counter—intentionally mimicking a specific, repeated gesture. If Kevin had any dialogue with an employee, the next business’s cashier—often using internet tools—would mimic fragments of his prior conversation at checkout. Kevin tested this by intentionally saying nonsensical things at some locations to see how the information flowed and the rate of time it took to get to other locations, only to hear those same words mimicked or referenced at the next business. Sometimes, they were interrogation-style questions. For example, if he said something like, “I think my computer was hacked,” the next employee at the next location might say something like, “Do you think hacking is ethical or unethical?” or something alluding to the prior dialogue. As this continued, he began capturing video evidence—which only made LAPD more aggressive and angry with him. He drove from Laguna Beach to Oxnard and did this within hours to trace the rate of information flow, to the largest circles possible, to see if the same tactics would happen—and they did, systematically and consistently, as directed by police and the psychology community. The goal was to create a scenario where, if Kevin tried to articulate what was happening, it would sound off-the-wall or crazy to outsiders or people who aren’t aware of these methods to make someone appear crazy for whatever reason. However, it appears that the real reason situations of this complexity occur is from government operations like FBI COINTELPRO, Stasi Zersetzung, or Russian punitive psychiatry. One cannot know exactly what is going on without an honest dialogue about it. Yet, in the Internet era, this orchestrated manipulation is not difficult to accomplish, other than the use of fear to pressure people into participating in the conspiracy. The original lie often being: ‘He does these things to people, so let’s do it back to him.’ This is entirely by design. And the situations mentioned here are off the Internet, but they are far worse on the Internet. Emails, Forums, Messages on Social Environments.

A further example years ago: In Studio City Starbucks, Kevin was simply minding his own business and drinking coffee. A Black man approached another customer, pointed at Kevin, and told that customer that Kevin had supposedly been kidnapped and then kidnapped someone else. Kevin interjected, telling the customer not to believe the accusation and that it was related to tensions with the Black community because Kevin had kissed a Black girl when he was 8 years old, and this sparked racism towards him. The man then sat nearby and began whistling at Kevin, employing the whistling tactic as further provocation. The police know these tactics are in use, and in fact have enabled these angry mobs since Kevin was a young child. The police have been caught, even on video taking part doing them. Or almost every police report while going into the Police Station involves Police Officer instigation with similar tactics to provoke, to try to get reaction to create the appearance of instability for whatever reason they are doing it.

These ‘idea of reference’ tactics became especially apparent around 2008, after Kevin bought his father a watch for his birthday. And Ron Perelman’s anger over kindness. He began noticing repeated, subtle references at businesses to watches, ‘watch commanders,’ and related phrases, constantly hinting or prodding for a reaction—so they could claim Kevin was crazy. For example, an officer might say, “I will ask my watch commander” when questioning Kevin. Kevin’s father would say his favorite movie was ‘Hugo,’ referencing the movie poster where the character is on a giant clock. These patterns—constantly dropping coded references—would appear everywhere. Meanwhile, what was really happening in Kevin’s mind was simple: he was just trying to do something nice for his father and couldn’t understand why his father would react with psychosis, rage, random community members taking part with LAPD. Any attempt to ask for a direct explanation was forbidden and only met with more anger or hostility. These patterns define the deeper motive at work: Kevin is not allowed to be normal, stable, or simply himself. Instead, he he has to deal with the people trying to make him look crazy and their interpretation—by design—to become whatever the original campaigners decided their five-year-old target must be, regardless of the reality of his intent or innocence. The reason these mass groups are taking part is because they already have been given the disinformation and false narrative before Kevin approaches, and they are reacting based on the lies they are told. And every interpersonal communication is based on the poisoned well, without getting to know the person who he is. Also called poisoning the well.

The police are fully aware that this ongoing harassment and coordinated provocation are happening—and they themselves have actively taken part in it since Kevin became aware of the campaign in 2001 however they clearly were always involved because upon finding out people were lashing out in anger and rage at him, the Police became extremely enraged while filing Police Reports. Especially for the obvious things like car vandalisms, or death threats. Their participation demonstrates not only a lack of concern about the wrongfulness of these actions but a clear indication that they are directly behind it. Rather than intervening or providing protection, law enforcement has chosen to perpetuate and legitimize the tactics, sending a message of institutional endorsement for the systemic abuse directed at Kevin Perelman.

Even if they were powerless to do anything, they would admit to what is going on, and how it started to keep civilians safe. Not stalk them for finding out Like Detective Garcia, Officer Norris, and Charles Sean Dinse, that Kevin is Crazy, and we don’t know what he’s capable of or will do. This is the crux of the entire argument that starts around 1977 parents scapegoating, and projecting their own issues onto their child, Because the child in 49 years hasn’t done anything like they are doing.

Defamation of Character and the LAPD Cover-Up Pattern

Why is it that no matter what happens in life, it is Kevin Perelman’s fault, and nothing is ever looked at other then him. No matter how much HATE, no matter how much AGRESSION. No matter how many death threats, no matter how many psychical and mental attacks? Every single situation on every level must be changed, taken out of context, and twisted to be used against Kevin Perelman and given out worldwide.

Example, 1980 Sunny Skies Day Camp, Kevin Perelman kisses a black girl. The family and psychology community get angry for positive normal behaviors. The band Devo it brought in to sing “Whip It” Communities are told Kevin is a racist, antisemitic, filled with anger and rage, and needs to be removed from society. It of course later changes to some kind of analogy about coffee and black people, as if black people are coffee. These methods change from coffee to cars, from Pool Tournaments to sex, Computer Servers to Waitresses. As if a paranoid psychotic. schizophrenic doesn’t approve of Kevin Perelman’s behaviors like Paul Humphrey friend since 14, Working at LAPD in 1998, with Michael Patrick Huntley.

When Kevin finds out what they started Worldwide, Why would Kevin not be allowed to tell anyone or ask any questions about what’s going on, other then to the people waiting for the reaction to throw on pre-made labels at 5 years old already prepared?

This article presents Kevin Perelman’s account of a decades-long pattern of character attacks, privacy violations, stalking, public confrontations, threats, vehicle vandalism, institutional labeling, and law-enforcement inaction.

Terrence Scroggins is not an isolated person in an isolated vehicle-damage dispute. He is part of a much larger and longer history of a mass conspiracy and cover up operation involving family hostility, childhood threats of institutionalization, repeated public confrontations, vehicle vandalism, property interference, nonstop stalking with enormous groups of coordinated individuals, accusations, and efforts to portray Kevin as unstable while ignoring what has been happening for close to five decades.

The same labels have followed him for years: “crazy,” “asshole,” dangerous, unstable, problems with authority, public nuisance, behavior problem, mentally ill, in need of medication, in need of control, or in need of institutionalization. Yet nothing has happened other then unprecedented group provocations to instigate reactions to use as false narratives to get what they want.

These labels have been repeated without honest dialogue, specific explanations, or a fair opportunity to respond. He has been told that he is somehow doing something wrong while being denied any direct explanation of what the supposed wrongdoing is. While doing everything correct, and normal. And demanded unobtainable perfect behavior that doesn’t apply to anyone else.

At the same time, people approach him, insult him, threaten him, damage property, provoke him, escalate disputes, and try to create reactions on a daily basis exponentially growing since 1977. Those people are then treated as victims, while his response is isolated and used as the entire story. In courtroom where they want him, out of courtrooms, in social environments, in almost every public location. And POLICE and PSYCHOLOGY COMMUNITY mental illness label cover up operations.

The pattern is familiar: strangers or loosely connected people act as though he is supposed to know what he “did,” demand that he “pay,” and then provoke him through confrontations, rumors, intimidation, and group hostility. When he asks what is happening, he is met with hostility, threats, accusations that he is imagining it, and demands that he seek medication or institutionalization.

The result is an environment where there is no safe person to report to by design to create the appearance of mental illness out of hostility for him starting when he was very young, no normal avenue to explain what happened, and no meaningful distinction between the people initiating the hostility and the person trying to defend himself against it.

The 1977 Origin of the Empty Labels

The pattern did not begin with Terrence Scroggins, probation, vehicle disputes, or later court cases. It began around 1977, when Kevin Perelman was approximately five years old.

From the beginning, ordinary childhood behavior, personality, frustration, independence, or imperfection was treated as something that could be converted into a permanent negative identity. The labels changed over time—“crazy,” “dangerous,” “public nuisance,” “behavior problem,” “paranoid,” “schizophrenic,” “not rehabilitated,” or in need of medication or institutionalization—but the method remained the same.

No one would directly identify a real concern, explain what was wrong, or give Kevin a fair chance to respond. Instead, there was anger, pressure, hostility, secrecy, threats, humiliation, and demands that he somehow confess to unnamed conduct.

This is why later events cannot be treated as isolated. The same structure was already in place: create a negative label, circulate it, provoke a reaction, ignore the provocation, and then use the reaction as supposed proof of the original label.

Jason Perelman and the Early Institutionalization Threats

The theme of institutionalization became more direct around 1988, during the Calabasas High School years. It was during this period that Jason Perelman, along with his friends and others, threatened to have Kevin placed in a mental institution. At the time, this behavior seemed to be Jason trying to put on a tough-guy performance and intimidate. Much of the conflict centered on Jason’s anger at Kevin’s friend, Greg Waugh, because Jason’s girlfriend, Jennifer Yang, was cheating on him. When Greg arrived at their house in his 1968 Camaro, Jason approached with a raised crowbar. Kevin intervened, stepping in as a shield to protect Greg from potential harm.

After this tense moment, Jason launched into a speech about “blood being thicker than water,” telling Kevin that he needed to keep tabs on Greg and report back. Within the same timeframe, there was another odd statement: “We have a bug in your room, and we are listening to everything you do on the radio.”

At the time, the broader context behind these threats wasn’t clear. The pattern included psychological pressure, involvement from the psychology community and police, and use of the Perelman family’s psychology background as a tool—manifesting as repeated labeling, public hostility, defamation, daily provocations, and ongoing efforts to create the image of someone who should be removed from society.

He was focused on building a life, attending college, becoming independent, and moving beyond family conflict that he did not yet realize had become a larger campaign against him.

Ordinary adolescent behavior was treated as permanent evidence of bad character. A single argument with his mother at age fourteen—including the statement, “Fuck you, who cares what people think”—was seized upon as proof that Kevin was dangerous, mentally ill, or needed to be taught a lesson. This one imperfect incident was broadcast and labeled to the masses worldwide, branding Kevin as “an asshole” and equating this one adolescent moment to every aspect of his personality and interactions with others.

Comments like Ron Perelman’s—“You think differently”—were used to frame Kevin’s response as a fundamental thought process issue. His isolated statement was taken out of context, interpreted literally, and weaponized to suggest that he was fundamentally flawed for not conforming to the expectation that “most people care what people think.” Acts of friendliness and kindness were intentionally ignored, and instead, the narrative persisted that Kevin had a personality problem—based not on how he actually treats people, but on a freeze-frame of a single moment in 1988. This logic was stretched to justify the belief that every interaction Kevin had with any person, at any time, was him “being an asshole,” and therefore, justified coordinated mistreatment.

This principle was ruthlessly enforced: since the single disobedient act toward his mother, Kevin was subjected to abuse, ridicule, and psychological harm from almost every person worldwide. The justification became that his trouble with authority and a supposed problem with respect were grounds for ongoing punishment.

A deeper pattern emerges with figures like Terrence Scroggins—who is close in age to Kevin’s parents and a military veteran, as Ron Perelman was in the Air Force—demonstrating a generational and cultural reinforcement of this authority-driven narrative. The pattern: one moment of adolescent independence and perceived “disobedience” is used as a pretext for continuous, rotating attacks from worldwide strangers, all serving to keep Kevin in line and punish him into submission. Personal growth, normal mistakes, or change are never allowed; the single act is treated as lifelong proof of bad character and reason for ongoing abuse.

There was no room for imperfection, disagreement, frustration, personality, growth, or a normal emotional reaction.

In 2001, he was in complete shock at the realization that one imperfection, emotional reaction, personality trait, or private comment could be seized upon, transformed into a permanent negative identity, and circulated widely to turn people against him and provoke further reactions.

No one directly addressed concerns with him. If there were to be a discussion it would be about things that no one could care less about. No one explained the original event that supposedly upset them. No one gave him a fair opportunity to respond. Instead, anger, hostility, indirect statements, pressure, and efforts to invoke reactions took the place of normal communication.

The real unresolved issue was the Perelman family’s communication methods and the way anger was handled toward him, rather than any actual danger posed by him.

For example, Anita Perelman angrily told him in 2001:

“Go to a therapist and tell them EVERYTHING.” With a pre-prepared list of Co-Workers, or people she knew in the Psychology Community.

When he asked what she was referring to, the response was increased anger and hostility or avoidance, rather than any direct explanation. He was expected to somehow know what people were upset about while being punished for asking.

This created a situation where he was made to feel responsible for conduct directed at him, as though he should confess to something unnamed simply because other people were angry. But in reality, what they really wanted was coerced false confessions to cover up what they had started around 1977 with LAPD, and the Psychology community.

When specific complaints were eventually implied, they often involved trivial or childish matters that ordinarily would not concern anyone while being blown out of immense proportions, such as buying a comical T-shirt at a T-shirt shop in Oregon while attending college in 1991. This information is somehow WORLDWIDE with countless other out-of-context statements to rile angry mobs against Kevin Perelman with an agenda. Showing that a simple dialogue with someone is designed to be dangerous because they are collecting, restructuring, and disseminating disinformation with an agenda to remove from society out of hate.

Rather than discussing that directly and proportionately, it became material for wider character attacks.

LAPD personnel later implied that Kevin Perelman was causing hostile groups to stalk him because they did not like a T-shirt he bought in 1991, effectively suggesting that buying a comical T-shirt before the internet made him responsible for people across the United States stalking, confronting, or targeting him.

The same logic has been applied to almost every artwork and other ordinary behavior. Harmless actions are treated as the cause, while the actions of people approaching, provoking, threatening, defaming, harassing, setting him up, or trying to frame him are excused, minimized, or ignored. Including Police Officers, Judges, Lawyers, Psychology Community, or Anyone with Authoritative power or where you can try to get help.

That is an inversion of responsibility.

The recurring institutionalization threats, relentlessly delivered by a nonstop rotation of people over nearly 50 years, surfaced again in Terrence Scroggins’s demand that Kevin be placed in “a mental health institution for the rest of his life.” This demonstrates how individuals latch onto Kevin’s fictional past all across the world. But the question of how they are getting these insignificant details about someone of no significance, who never got a chance to go out and liv his life is a whole different topic, with Scroggins joining a pattern that began upon Kevin Perelman moving into the area two decades prior. It suggests that Scroggins is probably in contact with these other individuals, and possibly even being paid to participate in this ongoing campaign. The script remains unchanged: whether it’s Jason Perelman, Jennifer Pilchick Perelman, Michael Patrick Huntley, Tom Farley, Paul Humphrey, or countless others, essentially anyone who has entered Kevin’s life since childhood, the pattern is to provoke him, create a reaction, ignore the true trigger, label him “crazy,” and then use that label as justification for control, exclusion, discrediting, or even calls for institutionalization. The underlying message is clear: the excuses and justifications may change over time, but the intent to achieve the same end, removing Kevin from society, remains constant until they get what they want.

Jennifer Hess, Private Violations, and Public Character Attacks as Cover-Ups

Jennifer Hess is connected to a broader pattern of targeted hostility. A negative, joking comment that Kevin made in private to a friend about Jennifer Hess was later taken out of context and used by worldwide groups to fuel a much larger character attack. This is part of a repeated tactic: private conversations are weaponized, stripped of context, and broadcast globally as evidence that Kevin is two-faced or speaks badly about people behind their backs. Normal, private remarks are transformed into tools of mass character assault using unconventional Internet tactics, such as whisper networks and coordinated social campaigns. As Mike Huntley once said, “It’s your behavior”—sending the message that any negative comment, even in private, will be punished through public humiliation.

These privacy violations involving Jennifer Hess, Paul Humphrey, the LAPD, and others, are not isolated. They fit a lifelong pattern Kevin has experienced: women and men have been tasked with befriending him only to provoke, entrap, or extract private information to use against him, repeatedly rotating since his youth. Rarely does anyone confront Kevin directly for clarification. Instead, private information is weaponized to cast him in a negative light, manufacture guilt or paranoia, and build a public narrative of instability or hostility. Acknowledging how this information was obtained or used would also reveal their own invasive behavior and criminal conspiracy. Whether the plot is to create the appearance of mental illness or to setup and frame Kevin, the goal has always been to paint him as “crazy,” “criminal,” or “unstable”—a pattern that’s grown exponentially since the late 1970s.

For example, Jennifer Hess during their short interlude called Kevin to ask him to check her email with he conspiring groups she is involved with. Paul Humphrey working at LAPD who was working with her to brand me as crazy, with Mike Huntley, LAPD, and others were illegally monitoring his computer; when they saw him log into Jennifer’s account, they twisted it into an accusatory narrative that he was hacking her email. Nearly every scenario has played out this way: ordinary actsm no matter how kind, are reframed as evidence of wrongdoing, then spread to demonize Kevin worldwide. Many never questioned why Jennifer Hess seemed to befriend Kevin with apparent premeditation—to set him up—as her obsession with this mass exponentially growing groups stretched back to his early childhood and involved significant resources. As a result, Kevin’s “friends” have often been provokers and manipulators, collecting information to twist into false evidence and build a damaging paper trail to use as cover ups, once he’s gone.

The recurring method is clear: obtain private information, strip it of context, and use it to encourage hostility, suspicion, and ongoing invasions of privacy—perpetuating the cycle until Kevin is completely isolated. While Kevin simply tries to live his life, he is relentlessly pursued by anonymous, strategically organized stalking, often involving the LAPD and others with authority.

Ron Perelman’s comments make the dynamic even more clear. By telling Kevin, “You think differently,” he implies that simply noticing or questioning this mass harassment is itself evidence of mental instability. The narrative is twisted: whenever Kevin raises concerns about real, ongoing surveillance and group harassment, those very concerns are cited as proof of his supposed psychological issues.

Private remarks and isolated incidents become the foundation for a much larger narrative: that Kevin is cruel, hateful, dangerous, or unstable. The goal is to defame him, recruit others to the story, and justify ongoing privacy violations, confrontations, stalking, and provocation—supported by law enforcement intimidation.

When Kevin documents an event, asks questions, asserts boundaries, responds verbally, or tries to report harassment, the police—with community and neighborhood watch backing—often falsify statements, portraying him as the instigator: crazy, paranoid, or schizophrenic. Simple things, like taking a film photography class in 1996 and doing a photo assignment, were used against him. For example, after a Jason Perelman’s friend Mike Wexler, who Jason Introduced him to at University Of Colorado stated, “Let’s go on a road trip, but you’re not allowed to take pictures of people,” the narrative changed so that if Kevin photographed anything and a person was nearby, that person would claim he committed a crime, leading to global stalking based on the invented offense. In 2013, LAPD Officer Toro threatened, “If you ever take a picture of a person, I will exercise the law in my own way.” The system escalates harmless acts into supposed crimes, with attempts to defend himself presented as further proof of instability.

Another tactic involved Jennifer Hess using fake names, such as Jesse Hess, which later connected to individuals like porn star Jesse Jane and her associates, who began stalking and provoking Kevin. Rotating groups within the adult industry—including people like Tim Thompson, Brian Longbotham, criminal defense attorney Michael Bialys, and his girlfriend Victoria Walker—were posing as friends while gathering years’ worth of information to use against Kevin. In one instance, Jesse Jane and a friend followed him into a Jamba Juice in Woodland Hills, whistling as part of a larger campaign of cryptic harassment tactics. Similar techniques were mirrored by people like actor Michael Clarke Duncan following him into Woodland Hills, Camera, where communities would mimic the whistling terror tactic—this tactic alone sometimes dozens or more times per day, nationwide—meant to provoke reactions reinforcing a false narrative of mental illness.

In order to test the waters, Kevin went from city to city videoing public harassments, from place to place, showing the mimics, repetition, instigations to try to invoke Kevin into anger and reactions. Example, one video shows something like 15 Starbucks in a row, in one day, while he’s ordering incorporate the word “Man” in a sentence. To try to get reactions to lock him away. When they found out they were on video, they called a corrupt criminal police officer Charles Sean Dinse who has been working with the family for decades, and he forged and fabricated police reports that Kevin came in, and supposedly threatened to kill all Starbucks Customers. Of course, the Video on the Internet, shows the opposite. Kevin didn’t come in doing anything at all but being as nice as can be with mental rocks being thrown at his head from strangers he had never seen or had met. This was done all across the United States on video. Almost every interactions is the same from stranger to stranger. It then rotates to newer or different tactics. It will go from “Man” to “Bro”, from bro to “Boss” So lets say he starts going to restuarants to eat food to stay breathing. Each waiter, waitress in repetition from place to place will start calling him “Boss”. A lot of these things from from movies, songs, or media. Because that’s how it starts in 1977.

Someone might invite him over to their house, like Mike Huntley after starting Signet-e Services. Says lets watch “Fight Club” and after this, whenever he takes a walk, or gets fresh air on a park bench and sits down. People will provoke him over and over like the Movie Character to try to make him look like a violent Paranoid Schizophrenic. But it won’t be a small group. That tactics alone started in 1999 and to present. That’s right now, 27 years of worldwide almost daily, and at almost every public location, attacks with that one fight club psychological terror tactic amongst worldwide groups who think it’s funny and amusing backed by pure anger and rage for something a 5 year old is accused of by the Perelman Family and their Psychology and Police friends while trying to mask it as a joke, tease or prank. On must occasions, they are laughing. But usually when it comes time to address the issue or proven wrong is when their personality changes into pure rage due to defiance of him proving he is not what they are saying he is.

This behavior extended to Jennifer Hess pretending to have mental health issues and claiming to be pregnant with Kevin’s child. When Kevin called her for clarification, her husband answered, laughed, and confirmed she was not pregnant and was married. Instead of being concerned that someone was manipulating Kevin with false information, Kevin’s family, police, and even worldwide groups were more upset that he sought answers, accusing him of boundary violations. The real anger was not at the predator trying to lock him into an unhealthy situation. Even possibly trying to make some kind of money of a pregnancy blackmail scheme. but at Kevin for realizing the truth and speaking up. These patterns fueled further cover-ups and misrepresentations, ensuring every reaction could be misconstrued.

Jennifer Hess, like Terrence Scroggins and others involved, appeared to be sent with the singular purpose of entrapping Kevin and finding ways to remove him from society while they profit off of it, all feeding back to the Perelman family’s anger stretching from his childhood. The most disturbing question remains: why would the Perelman family and worldwide groups have such detailed private information unless they were part of a large-scale conspiracy to target and eradicate him? After so long, the endless pattern of rotating, out-of-context pranks from strangers worldwide has become a riddle with no answer—except to destroy Kevin’s life. And where things get stranger is the Perelman Family and psychology community are trying to collect every aspect of Kevin’s reactions to twist out of context to use as unethical psychological evaluations by setups, frame jobs, entrapments, disinformation, trying to push him out of control, and collect anything they can for credibility attacks. How he reacted, what his conversations were to his friends to her, or anyone else. But they were never concerned about any of these nonstop crimes against Kevin Perelman while doing everything to silence him.

A further example: in 2005, during constant mobbing, a Starbucks employee named Garrett told Kevin, “It’s your transgressions”—clearly meant as a death threat and to justify ongoing attempts to have Kevin killed or erased. The statement could only mean: “We’ve been stalking you since you were a very young child. Don’t talk, or we kill you, and you must learn to accept your own execution.” Of course, few would ever openly admit such motives, even if involved. The more he proves his innocence, criminally, mentally, stability, the angrier they get.

The same pattern emerged in interactions with his sister-in-law, Jennifer Pilchick Perelman, who moved in lawyer-connected social circles and supported labeling him as “crazy.” This drive to create a psychiatric or character-based narrative persisted rather than addressing the underlying facts. The decades-long family pattern involved labeling Kevin as unstable, spreading the label, discrediting anything he said, and then using the distress caused as purported confirmation of the label’s truth.

Information Sharing and Inability to Start Over

Attempts to rebuild or relocate were consistently undermined by the spread of negative information through law-enforcement and threat-reporting systems. As a result, Kevin was often met with hostility and suspicion even by those who did not know him personally—primed to monitor, confront, or “teach a lesson” before any honest interaction ever took place.

Paul Humphrey, Mike Huntley, and the Return From Colorado while Paul was seeking LAPD employment

Paul Humphrey befriended Kevin around age fourteen, alongside Mike Huntley. Early on, friendship and trust were used to draw Kevin into situations that later became hostile or manipulative. After Kevin went to the University of Colorado, he was pressured or manipulated into returning to California, with the promise of helping start Signet-e Services. This return placed him back near his father and the same personal, police-connected, and judicial circles that he wasn’t aware were involved in these operations.

Even attempts to avoid those involved led to being followed, approached, confronted, and tested by people he didn’t know in public places. Repeated efforts were made to find something that could be used to frame him, set him up, generate a criminal allegation, or justify his removal from normal life. Threats, including “No relaxing for you nigger,” were received by the masses all across the United States with the psychological thugging and bullying to remove from society. Translation, anywhere you go, you will be attacked, brutalized, instigated into reactions to lock you away with empty mental illness cover up labeling. These encounters seemed designed to prevent him from living freely or building a new life or any life.

Mike Huntley’s Death Threats and the 2001 Realization

Death threats from Mike Huntley in 2001 marked a major turning point. Kevin realized that the same pattern had been occurring for years, though he hadn’t understood its scope. After these threats, Kevin attempted to avoid known sources of conflict, but provocations, confrontations, and attempts to elicit reactions continued.

During this period, incidents such as Rodie Morales with Mike Huntley, Ron Perelman, Paul Humphrey many others trying to get Kevin to take a trash bag of marijuana which was most likely from LAPD, due to the fact that Rodie Morales was working with LAPD to catch someone who moved here from Europe who supposedly had killed someone while Mike Huntley wanted to sign up to the Gym where he worked so Rodie could befriend me taking me to strip clubs with Porn Starts and Strippers, with all sorts of character attacks while they posed as victims with false defamation of character worldwide riling the masses against me. This attempted setup to try to make Kevin Perelman look like a drug dealer, one of many rotating tactics on this level, became part of the pattern. Kevin did not accept the marijuana in which they wanted in his house with LAPD, which led to increased threats and efforts to create both criminal and mental-health narratives against him. Statements were made about using the judicial system as a weapon.

Mike Huntley and the 2001 Turning Point

Mike Huntley’s death threats in 2001 became a major turning point. That was when the pattern became clearer. The conduct had been happening before 2001, but the scope, the connection between events, and the role of different people had not yet fully come into focus.

After the threats, Kevin tried to avoid the people involved however the circles were extremely large, and others connected to the conflicts. However, Mike Huntley’s death threat— “World of paranoia”—was not just a threat. It was backed by 24 years of prior daily stalking groups from 1977 to 2001, exponentially growing until they got what they wanted with their hate and obsession.

Kevin wanted distance and to rebuild his life—he wanted to live without continued confrontation. But the threats, provocations, public confrontations, property interference, accusations, and efforts to collect reactions continued anyway.

This period also involved Rodie Morales, his gym manager from World Gym where Mike Huntley wanted Kevin to sign up. Rodie Morales was told to befriend Kevin while working with LAPD, and there was an incident involving a trash bag of marijuana—apparently LAPD-confiscated—since Morales was working with LAPD at the gym to catch someone who had supposedly killed someone who moved to the United States from Europe. Morales took Kevin to strip clubs, and the marijuana was presented in a way that appeared to be an attempted setup or entrapment scenario by Rodeo Morales with this group.

Kevin did not take the marijuana which angered them even more, even while being taken to strip clubs with strippers and porn stars pretending to be victims with all sorts of random claims that were going out worldwide. Afterwards, the threats, provocations, attacks, and efforts to create criminal or mental-health narratives became substantially worse than what started in 1977, because Kevin was starting to realize what was going on. One of Mike Huntley’s death threats in 2001 was, “I’ve given you enough rope to hang yourself with.” Another statement stated was, “We can’t set you up.”. But mentioning any crimes against Kevin Perelman, will result in, he suffers from mental illness, or it didn’t happen while shirking all responsibility to deal with that was happening.

The World Gym period showed how an ordinary social environment could be turned into pressure, testing, and a possible setup. Mike Huntley wanted Kevin to sign up at World Gym, where Morales became friendly with him through that setting. The later strip-club outings, the presence of people presenting themselves as victims, and the trash bag of marijuana created an environment apparently designed to place Kevin into a compromising or suspicious situation. He did not take the marijuana.

The concern was not simply the marijuana itself, but the structure: create an environment, place Kevin in it, introduce something compromising, wait for a reaction, and then use the reaction to build a criminal or mental-health narrative.

This strip club tactic, also happened at Southern Oregon State College with Alaskan Exchange student Eric Christianson, Russian Exchange Student at University Of Colorado, Val Morozov, and back in California, Rodie Morales, and Tom Farley. These abusive environments, ranged from Elementry School Classes, Middle School Classes, Colleges, Friends, Acquaintances, Strangers, On the Internet, Off the Internet, and Exponentially grew off the Internet until 1994, unit the Internet came to be, and it became significantly worse at that point, as they realized they could us it for their advantage.

After Kevin began questioning what was happening, the threats, public confrontations, hostile encounters, and efforts to create accusations became substantially worse. There were numerous death threats, including from people working with LAPD. For example: “You had better accept what’s going on or it will get a lot worse for you,” as said by a person on video who had a K9 that appeared to be LAPD-related and that could attack on command—and who shredded Kevin’s leg. LAPD, however, was not concerned with proper police reports on his behalf.

Mike Huntley’s message was: “World of paranoia, have a good life. We are using the judicial system against you. You had better live a careful life. You’re too out of control for California,” along with many other threats. The message was understood as a threat that police, courts, and false narratives could be used against Kevin—false narratives meant to eradicate a five-year-old, now stretched to evolve over 50 years.

Jennifer Pilchick Perelman and Family Patterns – “We need to deem Kevin as crazy” conspiracy and defamation of character

His brother’s wife, Jennifer Pilchick Perelman, is connected to the same family pattern described throughout this account. She has participated in political, lawyer-connected social circles and has supported taken part, and repeated the idea that he should be deemed “crazy,” rather than addressing the underlying events that caused his distress and reactions. She has been broadcasting this statement on the internet to her political lawyer friends and groups.

Kevin considers her public political activity relevant because it created an added incentive to avoid scrutiny of family conflict, private conduct, and the broader history he describes. The timing of her congressional campaigns overlapped with the period in which negative statements and narratives about him were continuing.

Kevin also recalls a Deer Valley ski trip involving her son, Reese, when he was very young. Reese was told to whistle in a shoe store by his mother Jennifer, which will link to some of the events the psychology community is analyzing—such as Kevin buying jungle boots around 1993—just like every other insignificant behavior they are putting in their guilt bag for the world to have and hint about with idea-of-reference messages that never stop. This was when this one tactic first started in mass groups, with other rotating tactics done in extremely large groups of people who were repeatedly whistling wherever he goes—sometimes 10 to 40 times per day during that time period, and still continuing 20 years later on a smaller scale. People are told, if they see him, to whistle as they walk by, over and over from random stranger to random stranger. Coffee shop employees would do it for hours straight all across the United States, no matter where he went. Jennifer was using her child to try to make her brother-in-law look crazy, just like everyone else. Kevin describes whistling as one of the recurring tactics used to provoke a visible reaction and later portray that reaction as the real problem. In his view, the incident was significant because it suggested that the pattern extended into family settings and involved people connected to Jason Perelman, Jason’s friends, and Kevin’s former social circle.

At one point, Kevin Drove all over California to Coffee Shops and restaurants videoing these connected events along with the other psychological Gas Lighting terror tactics designed by LAPD, the Psychology Community, Family, Government, from whereever they originated from. If you do your history based on 1950’s east Germany Stasi, Soviet Punitive Psychiatry, FBI Cointtelpro operations. You will understand better as to some of these highly illegal Government Neutralization operations that Ron Perelman will call teasing until his son is no more.

There is a notable court-reporter connection: Jennifer Pilchick Perelman’s father, Jay Pilchick, owned a court-reporting company in Florida. Around the same time, court reporter Debbie Wollman owned the property adjoining the wall of the townhouse, a unit that remained unoccupied. Wollman repeatedly left threatening notes on the doorstep in an apparent attempt to provoke a reaction. Simultaneously, one neighbor’s young daughter was told to back into Kevin’s car, attempting to create a situation that would elicit a response, with the claim that he was parked in “her” space—even though the space never belonged to her. After Wollman moved out, the new family regularly parked in those same spaces—which Wollman had never parked in, further confirming the spots weren’t actually hers. Video footage exists of Wollman demanding an admission of mental illness, linking these incidents to other Van Nuys Courthouse employees and the Pilchick court reporting company, and suggesting broader attempts at provocation and judicial manipulation. According to Kevin, those notes appeared designed to create confrontations and provoke a response that could later be shared with Wollman’s coworkers at the Van Nuys Courthouse. He views the situation as another example of an ordinary parking or property issue being turned into a manufactured conflict, with the focus shifted onto his reaction rather than the conduct that led to it.

There is also a pattern of behavior from these groups working with Jason Perelman, and Jennifer Pilchick Perelman to tell young children to instigate Kevin Perelman in hope for a reaction to try to make him look abusive. This is most likely to cover up all the abuse the Perelman family started on him when he was around five years old. Because everything that is going on is a cover up from what started in 1977. By the Perelman family with the Government and unlimited resources.

The issue was not an isolated whistle, note, parking dispute, or single trip. These events reflected the same broader method he describes elsewhere: information about him is circulated from factionary accusation to accusation changing and rotating to the largest circles with instigation tactics nonstop all the way down to early childhood, especially with Police, and Psychology Community involvement. People are encouraged to provoke or test him, and if they can get a response it is then separated from its context and presented as evidence that he is unstable, hostile, or difficult. If they cannot get a response, they fabricate a cover up lie that is circulated amongst the masses.

Jennifer Pilchick Perelman’s relationship to Jason Perelman, the Perelman family, and their shared social and professional circles as relevant to understanding how these narratives continued. He alleges that the pattern has remained consistent across decades: portray him as unstable, circulate that label, use it to discredit what he says, and then treat any distress created by the labeling and pressure as supposed confirmation that the label is true.

Patterns persisted through family and social circles, where psychiatric or character-based narratives were promoted rather than addressing underlying events. Labeling continued across decades, with distress from these experiences being treated as further proof of the negative identity imposed.

Oddly enough, while Jason Perelman and Jennifer Pilchick Perelman, along with these mass worldwide groups, have been stalking Kevin with the intent to remove him from society since he was very young, one of Jennifer’s political agendas during these two arrests is Judicial Reform. This allows her to politically cover up her motives and present herself as someone trying to help the very person she is working to label as crazy. It acts as a cover, making it appear as if her efforts are in his best interest, when in reality, it serves to justify the ongoing campaign against him.

Information Sharing and the Inability To Start Over

Information Sharing and the Inability To Start Over

After 2001, Kevin tried to rebuild his life and avoid the people and places connected to the attacks. However, similar hostile circles continued to appear in different locations across the United States, making it nearly impossible to relocate or start over without facing the same pattern again and again. Which the information dissemination is how it starts, and gets so big that you can’t escape it, or reason with them. He was told to simply ignore daily instigations, attacks, provocations, vandalism, assault and battery, and even attempts on his life. LAPD informed him that he was not allowed to file police reports about these stalking operations involving community members and neighborhood watch groups or really anything that shows he is a good respectable person and the victim.

This unending hostility is directly tied to false or distorted information being circulated through law enforcement and threat-reporting systems—including SAR-related reporting, behavioral-threat-assessment systems, eGuardian-type information sharing, and related channels. According to Kevin, everything LAPD and others are entering into these systems is knowingly fabricated to portray him as unstable and dangerous by design until they get what they want.

People who have never met Kevin are already primed to view him with suspicion or hostility due to these narratives. Each new encounter typically begins with pre-existing negative assumptions, leading to suspicion, confrontations, and group campaigns to “teach a lesson,” even without any direct knowledge of what actually happened. This network of negative information justifies group stalking and exclusion, with Kevin being told to accept ongoing provocations and violence as a normal part of life. When he seeks help or tries to document the abuse, he is blocked by law enforcement.

Ultimately, the environment created by this information sharing guarantees that hostile groups and orchestrated provocations will continue to appear wherever he goes, preventing any real chance for him to start over.

The message is, they want him in a cage or institution, and if they can’t get that, he’s not allowed to leave his house, turning the house into a cage. And the only real solution they will not allow is an admission from people as to the situation. Because the narrative was created and disseminated worldwide leaving no way out of the situation they say isn’t happening while using the situation itself as a mental illness label if he speaks about it.

Photography, Ordinary Conduct, and Manufactured Suspicion

Normal activities were repeatedly redefined as suspicious or dangerous.

Kevin took a film-photography class at the University of Colorado in 1996. Taking photographs was part of a class assignment and an ordinary academic activity. Yet photography later became another subject used to imply wrongdoing.

During a 1996 road-trip discussion, a friend of Jason Perelmanm Mike Wexler said:

“Let’s go on a road trip, but you’re not allowed to take pictures of people.”

Later 2013 in Encino, Ca, Officer Toro threatened after the Perelman Families anger about Studio Photography working with a girl named Aubrey Fisher Introduced to him by Rodie Morales:

“If you ever take a person, I will exercise the law in my own way.”

The issue was not simply someone objecting to a photograph. A normal college class, photo assignment, artistic activity, and everyday photography were turned into supposed evidence of something threatening, pathological, or criminal.

The same pattern applied to taking walks, pulling to the side of the road, sitting in a vehicle, making a phone call, using GPS, browsing the internet, filming encounters, or documenting property damage.

Some questioning by the community to try to create the false appearance of obsession “Why do you take so many walks”, “Why do you go to the Gym so much, your not Arnold Schwarzenegger” “How many cigars to you smoke”, “How often to you go to this social event” All line of questioning is manufactured to try to cover up their agenda with falsified labels from random strangers who aren’t even qualified. However the false labeling instantly goes worldwide for some kind of ratcheting behavioral modification to instigate reactions to remove from society.

Those activities are ordinary and healthy. Yet they were repeatedly treated as if they were evidence of instability, obsession, danger, or wrongdoing. Kevin was expected to ignore what was happening, but when he documented it, photographed it, filmed it, or asked questions, the act of documenting became part of the accusation against him.

LAPD and the Reversal of the Narrative

Despite repeated reports, LAPD consistently refused to meaningfully investigate, document, or stop these acts. Authorities were allegedly told to cover up events, focusing instead on existing negative labels about Kevin rather than on actual conduct by those involved.

These patterns extended to private investigators, who—rather than impartial help—reportedly joined the process of silencing and did not investigate when hired. While trying to charge as much as possible for simple jobs. Negative labels became the narrative, while facts and context were ignored. Money and status seem to have been obtained from perpetuating this cycle rather than seeking truth. But money is not the main objective. Charging enormous rates is a method to block the target and victim from getting help with LAPD. This also applies to Lawyers.

Background: Five Decades of Coordinated Attacks and Defamation

Terrence Scroggins is not an isolated person in an isolated vehicle-damage dispute. Rather, he is one actor in a much larger and longer history of coordinated events all directed at Kevin Perelman. These events include family hostility, childhood threats of institutionalization, repeated public confrontations, vehicle vandalism, property interference, nonstop stalking, false accusations, and coordinated efforts to portray Kevin as unstable—all while ignoring or suppressing what has truly been happening to Kevin for nearly five decades. The campaign has always had a single, chilling intention: to remove Kevin from society, deploying empty labeling (especially the recurring, weaponized assertion that “he is crazy”), illegal police monitoring, and fabricated documentation—at any cost, and with no respect for truth or justice.

Specific tactics began when Kevin was five years old. Over the years, a fabricated, forged, and fraudulent paper trail of defamation has been built inside police reports, investigations, and police/community actions all across the United States, all aimed at branding Kevin as a threat or even neutralizing (killing) him—motives that remain rooted in the insecurity, hatred, and fears of the groups and individuals perpetuating them.

The repetitive negative labels—”crazy,” “asshole,” “dangerous,” “unstable,” “public nuisance,” “it’s his behavior,”—have been used against Kevin over and over, with no attempt at honest dialogue or explanation. There exists no standard of perfection he could ever meet. He is told never to ask what is going on; whenever he tries, he is met with threats, demands for medication, coercion, or calls to institutionalize. Acts of everyday kindness, involvement, or attempts at social connection—attempts at warmth, kindness, acceptance, seeking common goals or being part of something—are all met with ridicule or retaliation, often summed up as “We don’t want him here, he is weird.” Strangers who have never met Kevin, wherever he is in the world, frequently echo this hostility. All the while, groups or individuals who insult, threaten, damage property, provoke, or escalate disputes—often acting in concert or as part of orchestrated mobbing—are labeled as the victims, while Kevin’s natural or innocent responses are isolated, exaggerated, and presented as the entire problem, regardless of what evidence exists in his defense.

This pattern is deeply rooted in Kevin’s family behavior and vocabulary: recurring messages such as, “You know what you did, now you need to pay,” are used to incite and recruit others to vilify, provoke, and, once he reacts, to justify further isolation and exclusion. There is intentionally no safe person to turn to; any attempt by Kevin to report what is happening is labeled as paranoia, delusion, or—most commonly and centrally—taken as further proof of the very label, ‘he is crazy.’ Law enforcement in Los Angeles, the psychology community, government officials, neighborhood watch groups, and private actors have all played roles in perpetuating this chaos and instability, under the pretense of protecting public safety, but always reinforcing the cycle initiated against Kevin since childhood.

Dinse, Legal System Collusion, and Broader Patterns of Abuse

Dinse has been directly implicated in these patterns. He was sued by the FBI for engaging in nearly identical tactics against Rex Schellenburger—tactics rooted in malice, illegal surveillance, and judicial abuse. Despite serious allegations, a judge denied a Pitchess motion that would have provided access to Dinse’s police personnel records, potentially exposing his misconduct and history of abuse of power. This judicial decision is particularly revealing: it fits within a wider pattern of the legal system closing ranks to shield those on the inside, even when serious abuses are credibly alleged and supported.

These events connect the dots to broader operations: the role of court reporter Debbie Wollman, the orchestrated mobbings, Terrence Scroggins’s ongoing attacks, and the shared playbook of illegal police monitoring—all designed to remove from society anybody who is deemed problematic or simply isn’t liked by those with influence or power. What emerges is a sophisticated, coordinated campaign involving law enforcement, legal professionals, and community participants, all working outside reason or legitimate justification. The ultimate objective is social eradication through personal, political, or group animosity—not due to any valid criminal basis, but by weaponizing narrative control, legal power, and relentless harassment against the chosen target.

The Double Standard and the Value of Human Life

What is extremely strange and unjust is that the value of human life seems to be important to everyone except Kevin Perelman. If someone calls the police out of fear of Kevin Perelman, authorities will investigate the claim. However, if Kevin Perelman calls the police because a girl has tried to attack him with a knife simply for taking walks or leaving his house to get fresh air, no investigation is conducted and no arrest is made. This double standard has been present since Kevin was five years old.

Kevin is not classified or treated as a human being. Instead, he is either regarded as property—like a slave to be owned, watched, and controlled—or as a Jewish person condemned in a concentration camp. This exclusion and dehumanization are perpetuated even by his own family, who are concerned about the lives of everyone else in the family except Kevin’s.

When Kevin discovers that his life is in danger due to the actions of those who are doing what they shouldn’t, they receive protection while Kevin remains expendable. The narrative is always reversed to suggest that Kevin is somehow at fault or is doing something wrong, no matter the actual circumstances.

The Larger Pattern

A clear, recurring process has emerged:

1. Negative or misleading information is circulated about Kevin.
2. People, already hostile or suspicious, approach him—primed by those narratives.
3. He is confronted, insulted, threatened, provoked, has property damaged, or is accused—often by groups or those encouraged by others.
4. He documents the encounter, asserts boundaries, responds verbally, or attempts to report the incident.
5. The original conduct by others is ignored, minimized, or denied.
6. Kevin’s response is isolated and presented as supposed proof of instability, hostility, or a threat.
7. Formal systems—police, probation, courts, investigators, or mental-health professionals—are then used to escalate pressure.

The result is a paper trail built from reactions taken out of context, not from a fair record of the original threats, vandalism, intimidation, or repeated provocations and hostilities that led to them. Kevin’s only “offense” in this cycle has been trying to address the situation, document events, seek proof of stalking and harassment, and speak in self-defense against the damaging public narrative that has been imposed upon him.

Possible California Criminal Violations Raised by This Narrative

· Penal Code § 182 — Conspiracy: Coordinated planning by multiple people to threaten, harass, damage property, spread false information, provoke reactions, or build accusations against him.

· Penal Code §§ 664 / 187 — Attempted Murder: Death threats, weapon-related incidents, physical attacks, or conduct intended to kill him, if supported by evidence of a direct step toward carrying it out.

· Penal Code § 422 — Criminal Threats: Statements such as “That’s the man I want to kill,” Mike Huntley’s alleged death threats, and other threats of death or serious bodily injury.

· Penal Code § 646.9 — Stalking: Repeated following, unwanted approaches, appearances at public locations, contact near his residence or property, and threats meant to create fear.

· Penal Code § 594 — Vandalism: Vehicle defacement, property damage, tampering, and destruction of vehicles or other personal property.

· Vehicle Code § 10852 — Vehicle Tampering: Placing objects or substances in or around vehicles, tampering with gas tanks, jamming windows, interfering with components, or making a vehicle unsafe or unusable.

· Penal Code § 240 — Assault: Attempts or threats with the present ability to physically injure him during confrontations.

· Penal Code § 242 — Battery: Unwanted physical contact or physical attacks.

· Penal Code § 245 — Assault With a Deadly Weapon or Force Likely to Cause Great Bodily Injury: Knife-related threats, weapon-related conduct, or attacks capable of causing serious injury.

· Penal Code § 148.5 — False Report of a Crime: Knowingly false police accusations, false victim narratives, or reports made to create criminal consequences.

· Penal Code § 134 — Preparing False Evidence: Creating, staging, altering, or preserving false material for use in police, probation, or court proceedings.

· Penal Code § 136.1 — Witness Intimidation or Dissuasion: Threats or pressure intended to stop him from reporting conduct, presenting evidence, seeking help, or speaking publicly.

· Penal Code § 518 — Extortion: Seeking money, restitution, property, silence, or another advantage through force, fear, threats, or intimidation.

· Penal Code § 523 — Threats to Obtain Money or Advantage: Threatening injury, accusation, exposure, or reputational harm to obtain money, restitution, silence, or compliance.

· Penal Code § 236 — False Imprisonment: Preventing or restricting his ability to move freely, leave, use public spaces, park, walk, or live normally through force, threats, or intimidation.

The reality one people are told to create fictiteous mental illness label to make someone disapear out of society

Research By Kevin Perelman

Table Of Contents

1. 1939 — Wendell Johnson / Mary Tudor / University of Iowa — “Monster Study”

2. 1946–1953 — MIT / Quaker Oats / Fernald State School — Radioactive Oatmeal Study

3. 1950s–1970s — Albert Kligman / University of Pennsylvania / Holmesburg Prison

4. 1956–1971 — Saul Krugman / Robert McCollum / Willowbrook State School

5. 1963 — Chester Southam / Emanuel Mandel / Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital

6. 1960s–1970s — Eugene Saenger / University of Cincinnati / Department of Defense-linked Radiation Research

7. 1950s–1970s — Psychiatrists and Behavioral Therapists — LGBTQ Aversion Therapy

8. 1970s — George Rekers / O. Ivar Lovaas / UCLA-linked Behavior Modification

9. 1950s–1960s — Donald Ewen Cameron / Allan Memorial Institute / McGill University

10. 1963–1979 — Harry Bailey / Chelmsford Private Hospital

11. 1945–1947 — Stafford Warren / Manhattan Project Medical Researchers

12. 1973 — David Rosenhan / Psychiatric Hospitals — “On Being Sane in Insane Places”

13. 1940s–1970s — Atomic Energy Commission / U.S. Federal Radiation Researchers

14. 1950s–1970s — Deep Sleep Therapy / Narcosis Treatment Movement

15. 1950s–1960s — Lauretta Bender / Bellevue Hospital — ECT on Children

16. 1970s–Present — Judge Rotenberg Center / Matthew Israel

17. 1940s–1970s — Pennhurst / Belchertown / Letchworth Village / State Institutions

18. 1954 — Muzafer Sherif / Robbers Cave Experiment

19. 1960s–1970s — Laud Humphreys / Washington University — “Tearoom Trade”

20. 1960s–1970s — Prison Behavior-Modification Programs / U.S. Correctional Institutions

21. 1950s–1970s — Token Economy Programs / Locked Psychiatric Hospitals

22. 1960s–1970s — Patuxent Institution / Maryland “Defective Delinquent” Program

23. 1950s–1960s — Donald Hebb / McGill University / Canadian Defence Research Board — Sensory Deprivation Research

24. 1960s–1970s — Aversion Therapy Movement / MacCulloch, Feldman, Freund, McConaghy / Psychiatric and Behavioral Clinics — “Clockwork Orange”-style Conditioning

25. 1940s–1980s — Eugenics Boards / State Hospitals / Psychiatric Institutions

26. 1950s–1980s — Psychiatric Restraint and Seclusion Practices / State Hospitals

27. 1960s–1980s — Psychiatric Drug Trials / State Hospitals and Institutional Settings

28. 1955–1975 — U.S. Army Chemical Corps / Edgewood Arsenal

29. 1951–1989 — UK Ministry of Defence / Porton Down

30. 1960s–1970s — Prison Drug and Behavior-Control Research / Correctional Institutions

31. 1960s–1970s — MKSEARCH / CIA-linked Post-MKUltra Behavioral Research

32. 1946–1948 — John Cutler / U.S. Public Health Service / Guatemala STD Experiments

33. 1970s — Genie Wiley Case / UCLA-linked Language Development Researchers

34. 1940s–1970s — Institutionalized Children / State Schools, Orphanages, Psychiatric Facilities

35. 1940s–1980s — Forced Sterilization of Institutionalized Children and Disabled People

36. 1950 — U.S. Navy / Operation Sea-Spray / San Francisco Bay Area

37. 1950s–1960s — U.S. Army Chemical Corps / Operation LAC

38. 1953–1965 — U.S. Army Aerosol Testing / St. Louis / Pruitt-Igoe

39. 1940–1974 — Department of Defense-affiliated Human Experimentation

40. 1993–Present — National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program / State ChalleNGe Academies

41. 1967–2005 — CEDU / Mel Wasserman — Troubled-Teen Schools

42. 2001–2009 — Academy at Ivy Ridge / WWASP / Robert and Narvin Lichfield

43. 1971–Present — Provo Canyon School / Youth Residential Treatment

44. 1976–1993 — Straight, Inc. / Mel and Betty Sembler

45. 2024 — U.S. Senate Finance Committee / Ron Wyden — “Warehouses of Neglect”

46. 1950s–1990s — Duplessis Orphans / Quebec Institutions

47. 1800s–1970s — U.S. Native American Boarding Schools / Bureau of Indian Affairs and Church Operators

48. 1870s–1990s — Canadian Residential Schools / Canadian Government and Church Operators

49. 1944–1974 — Advisory Committee-documented Human Radiation Experiments / U.S. Federal Agencies

50. 1960s–1970s — Behavior-Modification Units in Prisons and Hospitals

51. 1960s–1980s — Residential Treatment Centers for “Unmanageable” Children

52. 1970s–Present — Private Military-style Schools for Troubled Teens

53. 1980s–2000s — Wilderness Therapy Programs / Aspen Education Group-type Programs

54. 1990s–2000s — Teen Transport / “Gooning” Industry

55. 1970s–Present — School Seclusion Rooms / Public Schools and Youth Facilities

56. 1970s–Present — Restraint Practices / Schools, Hospitals, and Youth Facilities

1. 1939 — Wendell Johnson / Mary Tudor / University of Iowa — “Monster Study”
Speech researcher Wendell Johnson at the University of Iowa designed this study, carried out by graduate student Mary Tudor at the Iowa Soldiers’ Orphans’ Home in Davenport, Iowa. Orphaned children were divided into groups and given either positive speech reinforcement or repeated criticism suggesting they had defective speech or were developing a stutter. The unethical issue was that researchers used authority, fear, correction, and labeling to create speech anxiety in vulnerable children who could not meaningfully refuse.

2. 1946–1953 — MIT / Quaker Oats / Fernald State School — Radioactive Oatmeal Study
MIT researchers, working with Quaker Oats and the Fernald State School in Massachusetts, used institutionalized boys in a “Science Club” where they were fed cereal containing radioactive tracers. The stated purpose was to study nutrient absorption. The unethical issue was the misleading framing: children in state care were made to feel selected or rewarded while being used in radiation-related research they and their families were not positioned to fully understand.

3. 1950s–1970s — Albert Kligman / University of Pennsylvania / Holmesburg Prison
Dermatologist Albert Kligman, affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania, conducted experiments on prisoners at Holmesburg Prison in Philadelphia. These included dermatology tests, drug trials, cosmetics testing, chemical exposure, and skin-irritant research. The unethical issue was the use of incarcerated people as a convenient captive population, where payment, confinement, and limited alternatives made “consent” highly questionable.

4. 1956–1971 — Saul Krugman / Robert McCollum / Willowbrook State School
Researchers including Saul Krugman and Robert McCollum conducted hepatitis studies at Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, an institution for children with intellectual disabilities. Children were deliberately exposed to hepatitis to study infection, immunity, and prevention. The unethical issue was that disabled institutionalized children were used as disease subjects in a setting where families had limited leverage and the children themselves could not meaningfully consent.

5. 1963 — Chester Southam / Emanuel Mandel / Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital
Cancer researcher Chester Southam and hospital director Emanuel Mandel were involved in research at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in Brooklyn. Chronically ill and elderly patients were injected with live cancer cells as part of immune-response research. The unethical issue was that patients were not clearly told they were being injected with cancer cells, turning vulnerable medical patients into research subjects without proper informed consent.

6. 1960s–1970s — Eugene Saenger / University of Cincinnati / Department of Defense-linked Radiation Research
Radiologist Eugene Saenger at the University of Cincinnati conducted whole-body and partial-body radiation studies on cancer patients, with research connections to military concerns about radiation exposure. Patients were exposed to significant radiation so researchers could study human physical responses. The unethical issue was that seriously ill patients may not have understood the experimental purpose, the risks, or the military relevance of what was being done to them.

7. 1950s–1970s — Psychiatrists and Behavioral Therapists — LGBTQ Aversion Therapy
Some psychiatrists, psychologists, and behavioral therapists used electric shock, nausea-inducing drugs, shame conditioning, and other punishment methods to try to change sexual orientation. These practices appeared in hospitals, clinics, universities, and psychiatric settings. The unethical issue was that physical and psychological distress was used to force identity conformity, treating sexual orientation as a defect to be punished out of a person.

8. 1970s — George Rekers / O. Ivar Lovaas / UCLA-linked Behavior Modification
Psychologist George Rekers and behaviorist O. Ivar Lovaas were associated with UCLA-linked behavior modification work involving a young boy whose gender-nonconforming behavior was targeted. Masculine-coded behavior was rewarded, while feminine-coded behavior was discouraged or punished. The unethical issue was that behavioral psychology was used to suppress a child’s identity expression and train him toward socially approved conduct.

9. 1950s–1960s — Donald Ewen Cameron / Allan Memorial Institute / McGill University
Psychiatrist Donald Ewen Cameron, working at the Allan Memorial Institute in Montreal and affiliated with McGill University, used extreme psychiatric methods called “psychic driving” and “depatterning.” Patients were subjected to heavy electroshock, drug-induced sleep, sensory disruption, and repeated taped messages. The unethical issue was that psychiatric patients were exposed to procedures intended to break down and reshape mental patterns, often without meaningful consent.

10. 1963–1979 — Harry Bailey / Chelmsford Private Hospital
Psychiatrist Harry Bailey used deep sleep therapy at Chelmsford Private Hospital in Australia. Patients were placed under prolonged drug-induced sleep, often combined with electroconvulsive therapy. The unethical issue was that patients were chemically incapacitated for extended periods, reducing agency and exposing them to severe medical risks, including deaths associated with the practice.

11. 1945–1947 — Stafford Warren / Manhattan Project Medical Researchers
Manhattan Project medical researchers, including figures connected to nuclear medicine and military research, injected civilian hospital patients with radioactive substances such as plutonium, uranium, or polonium. The purpose was to study how radioactive materials moved through the human body. The unethical issue was that military-nuclear research used human subjects without meaningful informed consent.

12. 1973 — David Rosenhan / Psychiatric Hospitals — “On Being Sane in Insane Places”
Psychologist David Rosenhan sent pseudopatients into psychiatric hospitals claiming they heard voices. After admission, they behaved normally, but staff often interpreted ordinary behavior through psychiatric labels. The unethical issue was two-sided: the study exposed how labels could trap people inside institutions, but it also used deception and placed hospitals, staff, and real patients inside an experiment without informed participation.

13. 1940s–1970s — Atomic Energy Commission / U.S. Federal Radiation Researchers
The Atomic Energy Commission and related federal agencies sponsored or oversaw radiation studies involving hospital patients, prisoners, soldiers, children, and institutionalized people. These studies examined radiation exposure, radioactive materials, and human biological response. The unethical issue was that vulnerable populations were used in radiation-risk research before modern consent protections existed.

14. 1950s–1970s — Deep Sleep Therapy / Narcosis Treatment Movement
Deep sleep therapy, also called narcosis treatment, was used by some psychiatrists to keep patients unconscious or heavily sedated for days or weeks. It was sometimes combined with electroshock, psychiatric drugs, or other interventions. The unethical issue was that prolonged sedation removed patient agency and created serious medical risks while being presented as treatment.

15. 1950s–1960s — Lauretta Bender / Bellevue Hospital — ECT on Children
Psychiatrist Lauretta Bender at Bellevue Hospital in New York used electroconvulsive therapy and other aggressive psychiatric interventions on children diagnosed with severe psychiatric conditions. These children were often highly vulnerable and under institutional medical authority. The unethical issue was that children were subjected to seizure-inducing treatment during an era with weaker consent standards, limited oversight, and less understanding of long-term harm.

16. 1970s–Present — Judge Rotenberg Center / Matthew Israel
The Judge Rotenberg Center in Massachusetts, founded by psychologist Matthew Israel, became known for using electric-shock aversive devices on disabled children and adults. The shocks were used to suppress behaviors deemed dangerous, disruptive, or noncompliant. The unethical issue is that painful punishment was framed as treatment, raising serious concerns about disability rights, abuse, consent, and institutional control.

17. 1940s–1970s — Pennhurst / Belchertown / Letchworth Village / State Institutions
State institutions such as Pennhurst in Pennsylvania, Belchertown in Massachusetts, and Letchworth Village in New York housed children and adults with disabilities in overcrowded and often abusive conditions. Residents could experience neglect, restraint, isolation, overmedication, punishment, and lack of basic care. The unethical issue was that vulnerable people were treated as problems to manage rather than human beings with rights, dignity, and agency.

18. 1954 — Muzafer Sherif / Robbers Cave Experiment
Social psychologist Muzafer Sherif conducted the Robbers Cave Experiment with boys at a summer camp in Oklahoma. Researchers divided the boys into rival groups, encouraged competition and hostility, and later introduced shared goals to study cooperation. The unethical issue was that children were unknowingly manipulated into conflict, emotional stress, and group hostility as part of a social psychology experiment.

19. 1960s–1970s — Laud Humphreys / Washington University — “Tearoom Trade”
Sociologist Laud Humphreys, affiliated with Washington University, secretly observed men engaging in sexual encounters in public restrooms. He recorded identifying information and later interviewed some subjects under false pretenses. The unethical issue was the invasion of privacy, deception, and risk of exposing highly sensitive information that could have destroyed reputations, jobs, and families.

20. 1960s–1970s — Prison Behavior-Modification Programs / U.S. Correctional Institutions
Some correctional institutions experimented with isolation, drugging, punishment, rewards, token systems, and psychological control methods to reshape inmate behavior. These programs were often presented as rehabilitation or treatment. The unethical issue was that prisoners were a captive population with limited ability to refuse, allowing “therapy” to become coercive institutional control.

21. 1950s–1970s — Token Economy Programs / Locked Psychiatric Hospitals
Token economy systems were used in locked psychiatric wards where patients earned or lost privileges, comfort, activities, movement, or access based on compliant behavior. These systems were promoted as behavioral treatment. The unethical issue was that in locked institutions, basic freedoms could become behavioral currency, making treatment resemble obedience training.

22. 1960s–1970s — Patuxent Institution / Maryland “Defective Delinquent” Program
Patuxent Institution in Maryland used the label “defective delinquent” to classify certain people convicted of crimes. This psychiatric-criminal label could justify confinement beyond ordinary sentencing. The unethical issue was that medicalized labels were used to extend control, blurring punishment, diagnosis, treatment, and indefinite confinement.

23. 1950s–1960s — Donald Hebb / McGill University / Canadian Defence Research Board — Sensory Deprivation Research
Psychologist Donald Hebb at McGill University conducted sensory deprivation research with support connected to Canadian defense interests. Subjects wore goggles, gloves, and other devices while being placed in monotonous, reduced-stimulation conditions. The unethical issue was that the research showed how sensory deprivation could destabilize perception and thinking, raising later concerns about interrogation, psychological control, and military applications.

24. 1960s–1970s — Aversion Therapy Movement / MacCulloch, Feldman, Freund, McConaghy / Psychiatric and Behavioral Clinics — “Clockwork Orange”-style Conditioning

Psychiatrists, psychologists, and behavioral researchers in hospitals, universities, correctional institutions, and psychiatric clinics used aversion therapy to suppress behaviors, thoughts, identities, or impulses they considered undesirable. Real figures associated with this movement included Robert MacCulloch and M. Philip Feldman in Britain, Kurt Freund at Charles University in Prague, and Neil McConaghy at the University of New South Wales and Prince Henry Hospital in Sydney. These researchers used or studied methods such as electric shock, nausea-inducing drugs like apomorphine, shame conditioning, and repeated pairing of distress with targeted images, thoughts, or behaviors.

The comparison to A Clockwork Orange comes from the fictional Ludovico Technique, where Alex is restrained, forced to watch violent films, and chemically made sick until violence itself triggers nausea and terror. Real aversion therapy did not always look exactly like the fictional scene, but the underlying logic was similar: pair an unwanted impulse with pain, illness, fear, or disgust until the person becomes conditioned against it. The unethical issue was that suffering was used as a tool of behavioral control, especially against vulnerable people such as psychiatric patients, prisoners, institutionalized individuals, and LGBTQ people, turning “treatment” into punishment-based conformity.

25. 1940s–1980s — Eugenics Boards / State Hospitals / Psychiatric Institutions
State eugenics boards and institutional authorities approved sterilizations of people labeled mentally ill, disabled, “feebleminded,” poor, dependent, or socially undesirable. Many victims were in state hospitals, psychiatric institutions, or disability facilities. The unethical issue was that institutional and psychiatric labels were used to justify permanent bodily control and reproductive punishment.

26. 1950s–1980s — Psychiatric Restraint and Seclusion Practices / State Hospitals
Psychiatric hospitals used physical restraints, seclusion rooms, forced medication, and isolation to control patients. These practices were often justified as safety measures or clinical management. The unethical issue was that restraint and seclusion could easily become punishment, containment, or silencing of distress, especially when used on people with little power to object.

27. 1960s–1980s — Psychiatric Drug Trials / State Hospitals and Institutional Settings
Institutionalized psychiatric patients were used in medication trials while dependent on hospitals for housing, food, care, privileges, and possible release. New psychiatric drugs were tested in settings where patients had limited independence. The unethical issue was that “treatment” could function as experimentation, with patients pressured by dependency and confinement.

28. 1955–1975 — U.S. Army Chemical Corps / Edgewood Arsenal
At Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland, the U.S. Army Chemical Corps tested psychoactive drugs, nerve-agent-related substances, chemical agents, and incapacitating compounds on soldiers. The goal was to study military usefulness and human effects. The unethical issue was that military subjects were exposed to secret chemical and psychological-effect testing where consent, risk disclosure, and long-term health consequences were deeply contested.

29. 1951–1989 — UK Ministry of Defence / Porton Down
At Porton Down in the United Kingdom, military volunteers were exposed to chemical-warfare agents and related substances during defense testing. These tests involved nerve-agent research and other hazardous materials. The unethical issue was that military hierarchy can pressure participation, and the substances involved carried serious health risks that volunteers may not have fully understood.

30. 1960s–1970s — Prison Drug and Behavior-Control Research / Correctional Institutions
Some prison research programs combined drug testing, isolation, behavior conditioning, reward systems, punishment systems, and institutional discipline. These programs were framed as research, rehabilitation, or behavior management. The unethical issue was that prisoners had limited practical ability to refuse, and behavioral research could become a tool of prison control.

31. 1960s–1970s — MKSEARCH / CIA-linked Post-MKUltra Behavioral Research
MKSEARCH followed earlier CIA programs such as MKUltra and continued interest in drugs, behavior modification, covert testing structures, and human performance under chemical influence. The program reflected government interest in controlling, weakening, or altering human behavior. The unethical issue was that behavior-control research continued through secretive channels with serious problems involving consent, oversight, and abuse.

32. 1946–1948 — John Cutler / U.S. Public Health Service / Guatemala STD Experiments
U.S. Public Health Service physician John Cutler was involved in experiments in Guatemala where prisoners, soldiers, sex workers, and psychiatric patients were deliberately exposed to syphilis, gonorrhea, or chancroid. The goal was to study disease transmission and prevention. The unethical issue was that vulnerable people were infected without proper consent, making it one of the most severe U.S.-linked medical ethics violations.

33. 1970s — Genie Wiley Case / UCLA-linked Language Development Researchers
Genie Wiley, a severely abused and isolated child, became the subject of intense language-development research after being rescued. UCLA-linked researchers studied her language acquisition, trauma, and developmental recovery. The unethical issue was that the boundary between care, custody, and research became blurred around a traumatized child who needed protection more than experimentation.

34. 1940s–1970s — Institutionalized Children / State Schools, Orphanages, Psychiatric Facilities
Children in state schools, orphanages, psychiatric facilities, and disability institutions were used in medical, behavioral, drug, developmental, and psychological research. These children were often wards of the state or under institutional control. The unethical issue was that institutionalized children had little power to refuse and were treated as accessible research subjects.

35. 1940s–1980s — Forced Sterilization of Institutionalized Children and Disabled People
Minors and disabled people were sterilized under eugenic, psychiatric, or institutional policies justified by claims of disability, dependency, “feeblemindedness,” or social undesirability. These policies often targeted people already confined or supervised by institutions. The unethical issue was that permanent bodily control was imposed through medicalized labels on people least able to resist.

36. 1950 — U.S. Navy / Operation Sea-Spray / San Francisco Bay Area
During Operation Sea-Spray, the U.S. Navy released bacteria over the San Francisco Bay Area to study biological-warfare vulnerability and dispersal patterns. Civilian residents were not warned or asked for consent. The unethical issue was that an entire civilian population, including children and vulnerable residents, was exposed as part of a military test.

37. 1950s–1960s — U.S. Army Chemical Corps / Operation LAC
Operation LAC, meaning Large Area Coverage, involved the U.S. Army Chemical Corps releasing zinc cadmium sulfide particles from aircraft, vehicles, and rooftops to study dispersal patterns. Civilian areas were used to model biological-warfare spread. The unethical issue was that communities were turned into unwitting exposure populations for military research.

38. 1953–1965 — U.S. Army Aerosol Testing / St. Louis / Pruitt-Igoe
Military aerosol dispersal testing occurred around St. Louis, including areas associated with the Pruitt-Igoe housing project. The tests involved releasing particles to study how substances moved through urban environments. The unethical issue was that residents, including children and low-income families, became unwitting subjects in military aerosol testing.

39. 1940–1974 — Department of Defense-affiliated Human Experimentation
Department of Defense-affiliated entities, including Army, Navy, Air Force, CIA, Defense Nuclear Agency, and related agencies, sponsored chemical, biological, radiological, and behavioral studies. These involved soldiers, prisoners, patients, and civilians. The unethical issue was that military research priorities often outweighed transparency, informed consent, and protection of vulnerable subjects.

40. 1993–Present — National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program / State ChalleNGe Academies
The National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program places youth in military-structured residential programs using uniforms, cadet hierarchy, drills, discipline, physical training, strict schedules, and behavioral expectations. It is not automatically abusive, but it uses military-style structure to reshape youth behavior. The unethical concern is that youth already labeled as needing intervention can be placed into highly controlled environments where obedience and compliance become central goals.

41. 1967–2005 — CEDU / Mel Wasserman — Troubled-Teen Schools
CEDU schools, founded by Mel Wasserman, operated private emotional-growth and troubled-teen programs using confrontation, seminars, peer pressure, hierarchy, confession-style exercises, and behavior systems. Former students have alleged humiliation, coercion, psychological abuse, and rights violations. The unethical issue was that private youth programs could use therapeutic language to justify emotional control and forced conformity.

42. 2001–2009 — Academy at Ivy Ridge / WWASP / Robert and Narvin Lichfield
Academy at Ivy Ridge in New York was linked to the WWASP network, associated with Robert and Narvin Lichfield. Former students alleged isolation, restraint, surveillance, coercive discipline, and psychological abuse. The unethical issue was that parental fear of a “troubled” child could become a pipeline into private confinement and control.

43. 1971–Present — Provo Canyon School / Youth Residential Treatment
Provo Canyon School in Utah operated as a youth residential treatment facility. Former students have publicly alleged forced medication, restraint, isolation, and psychological mistreatment. The unethical issue was that youth treatment can become confinement and behavior control when children are isolated from outside support and placed under total institutional authority.

44. 1976–1993 — Straight, Inc. / Mel and Betty Sembler
Straight, Inc., founded by Mel and Betty Sembler, operated as a teen drug-treatment program. It used confrontation, peer control, restraint, humiliation, strict compliance systems, and group pressure. The unethical issue was that “treatment” could become behavioral domination through fear, coercion, and forced confession-style control.

45. 2024 — U.S. Senate Finance Committee / Ron Wyden — “Warehouses of Neglect”
The U.S. Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Senator Ron Wyden, released findings describing abuse, neglect, and failed oversight in youth residential treatment facilities. The investigation addressed taxpayer-funded systems where children were placed for treatment but allegedly suffered harm. The unethical issue was that institutions marketed as care providers could become warehouses of neglect, confinement, and abuse.

46. 1950s–1990s — Duplessis Orphans / Quebec Institutions
In Quebec, children known as the Duplessis Orphans were allegedly mislabeled as mentally ill and placed in psychiatric institutions. Many reported neglect, abuse, improper confinement, and loss of normal childhood opportunities. The unethical issue was that false or improper psychiatric classification was used to institutionalize children who should not have been treated as mentally ill.

47. 1800s–1970s — U.S. Native American Boarding Schools / Bureau of Indian Affairs and Church Operators
Indigenous children in the United States were removed from families and placed in boarding schools operated by government and church authorities. These schools were designed to suppress Native languages, culture, religion, identity, and family ties. The unethical issue was that children were controlled through forced assimilation, punishment, cultural erasure, and institutional discipline.

48. 1870s–1990s — Canadian Residential Schools / Canadian Government and Church Operators
Canadian residential schools removed Indigenous children from their families and placed them in government- and church-run institutions. Many children experienced abuse, punishment, neglect, forced assimilation, and suppression of language and culture. The unethical issue was that institutional control was used as state and church policy to erase identity and sever children from families.

49. 1944–1974 — Advisory Committee-documented Human Radiation Experiments / U.S. Federal Agencies
The Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments later documented federal radiation studies involving patients, prisoners, soldiers, children, and hospital subjects. These studies were connected to military, medical, and nuclear research priorities. The unethical issue was that many subjects lacked meaningful informed consent and were chosen because they were dependent, institutionalized, or otherwise vulnerable.

50. 1960s–1970s — Behavior-Modification Units in Prisons and Hospitals
Behavior-modification units in prisons and hospitals used rewards, punishments, isolation, drugs, token systems, and privilege control to shape conduct. These systems were often described as treatment or rehabilitation. The unethical issue was that when people cannot freely leave, behavioral treatment can become institutional obedience training.

51. 1960s–1980s — Residential Treatment Centers for “Unmanageable” Children
Children labeled unsafe, defiant, disturbed, or unmanageable were placed in locked or semi-locked treatment settings. These facilities could use medication, restraint, seclusion, privilege systems, and compliance plans. The unethical issue was that labels could justify confinement, and children had limited ability to challenge the diagnosis, placement, or treatment.

52. 1970s–Present — Private Military-style Schools for Troubled Teens
Private military-style schools marketed uniforms, drills, discipline, obedience, hierarchy, strict routines, and physical training to parents seeking control over a “troubled” child. These schools often borrowed military imagery without being actual military institutions. The unethical issue was that discipline could be sold as transformation while avoiding the oversight expected in official public systems.

53. 1980s–2000s — Wilderness Therapy Programs / Aspen Education Group-type Programs
Wilderness therapy programs sent youth into remote outdoor settings using survival stress, isolation from home, group pressure, forced endurance, discipline, and limited outside contact. Companies such as Aspen Education Group became associated with this broader industry. The unethical issue was that children could be placed in physically risky, isolated environments where refusal or reporting abuse was extremely difficult.

54. 1990s–2000s — Teen Transport / “Gooning” Industry
Private teen transport agents, sometimes called “goons,” removed youth from homes and transported them to residential treatment centers, wilderness programs, or disciplinary schools. Removals could happen at night, by surprise, or under physical control. The unethical issue was that children could be frightened, restrained, and transported without meaningful consent.

55. 1970s–Present — School Seclusion Rooms / Public Schools and Youth Facilities
Schools and youth facilities used locked, enclosed, or isolated rooms to control children during behavioral incidents. These rooms were often used on children with disabilities or emotional distress. The unethical issue was that isolation can become punishment, trauma, or containment instead of care, especially when children are left alone while already dysregulated.

56. 1970s–Present — Restraint Practices / Schools, Hospitals, and Youth Facilities
Children in schools, hospitals, psychiatric settings, and youth facilities have been physically restrained using holds, takedowns, prone restraint, mechanical restraint, or prolonged staff control. Restraint is often justified as safety intervention. The unethical issue is that restraint can injure, traumatize, silence, or kill children when overused or misused, especially when applied to disability-related or emotional behavior

Research By Kevin Perelman

Table Of Contents

1. 1890s–1900s — Ivan Pavlov

2. 1913 — John B. Watson

3. 1920 — John B. Watson & Rosalie Rayner

4. 1927–1960s — Manfred Sakel

5. 1930s–1950s — B. F. Skinner

6. 1932–1972 — Tuskegee Syphilis Study / U.S. Public Health Service

7. 1934 — Ladislas Meduna

8. 1935–1950s — António Egas Moniz / Walter Freeman

9. 1938–present — Ugo Cerletti & Lucio Bini

10. 1940s — B. F. Skinner

11. 1940s — Nazi Human Experiments

12. Late 1940s–1950s — CIA Project BLUEBIRD

13. Early 1950s — CIA Project ARTICHOKE

14. 1950s — Harry Harlow

15. 1950s–1960s — Robert G. Heath

16. 1950s–1960s — José Delgado

17. 1951–1956 — Solomon Asch

18. 1953–1973 — CIA Project MKUltra

19. 1961–1962 — Stanley Milgram

20. 1961–1963 — Albert Bandura

21. 1960s — Martin Seligman & Steven Maier

22. 1971 — Philip Zimbardo

23. 1972 — Irving Janis

24. 1970s–1980s — Thought Reform / Coercive Persuasion Research

25. 1984 — Robert Cialdini

26. 1980s–2000s — Interrogation Psychology Controversies

27. 2000s–Present — Digital Behavioral Engineering

28. 2000s–2010s — James Mitchell, Bruce Jessen, APA / National-Security Interrogation Psychology
29. 1997–Present — B.J. Fogg / Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab — Captology & Behavior Design

1. 1890s–1900s — Ivan Pavlov
   Pavlov restrained dogs, surgically prepared some to measure saliva, and repeatedly paired food with a bell, tone, metronome, or visual cue. After repetition, the dogs salivated to the signal alone, showing that the nervous system could be trained to react automatically to a previously neutral cue.
2. 1913 — John B. Watson
   Watson promoted behaviorism, arguing that psychology should focus on observable behavior instead of inner thoughts. His view pushed the idea that human behavior could be predicted, shaped, and controlled by manipulating the environment.
3. 1920 — John B. Watson & Rosalie Rayner
   In the Little Albert experiment, they showed a baby a white rat, then made a sudden terrifying noise by striking a steel bar behind him. After repeated pairings, the child began fearing the rat and similar furry objects. A harmless object was turned into a fear trigger.
4. 1927–1960s — Manfred Sakel
   Sakel treated psychiatric patients with large insulin doses to force severe hypoglycemia and coma. Patients were repeatedly pushed into dangerous unconscious states and then revived, supposedly to treat schizophrenia. The “treatment” carried risks of seizures, brain injury, and death.
5. 1930s–1950s — B. F. Skinner
   Skinner placed rats and pigeons inside controlled boxes where levers, keys, lights, and food dispensers controlled every consequence. Animals learned to press or peck for food, avoid unpleasant outcomes, or repeat behaviors based on reinforcement schedules. The experiment reduced behavior to a controllable machine-like loop.
6. 1932–1972 — Tuskegee Syphilis Study / U.S. Public Health Service
   Government researchers followed Black men with syphilis while misleading them about the study and their diagnosis. Even after penicillin became the standard treatment, many were not properly treated. The men were used as long-term disease subjects instead of protected as patients.
7. 1934 — Ladislas Meduna
   Meduna injected psychiatric patients with Metrazol/Cardiazol to intentionally trigger violent seizures. The theory was that convulsions might relieve schizophrenia. Patients often experienced terror before the seizure, physical injury risk, and extreme distress.
8. 1935–1950s — António Egas Moniz / Walter Freeman
   Moniz developed frontal lobotomy, and Freeman popularized it in the United States, including the transorbital “ice-pick” method through the eye socket. Brain pathways were cut or damaged to alter behavior, emotion, or agitation. Many patients were left cognitively impaired, emotionally flattened, disabled, or permanently changed.
9. 1938–present — Ugo Cerletti & Lucio Bini
   Cerletti and Bini introduced electroconvulsive therapy by sending electrical current through the brain to cause seizures. Modern ECT is done with anesthesia and medical safeguards, but early use was harsher, less controlled, and sometimes involuntary. Its history includes serious ethical concerns around consent and coercion.
10. 1940s — B. F. Skinner
    Skinner tested reinforcement schedules where animals did not receive food every time, but unpredictably after varying numbers of responses. This variable-ratio pattern made animals keep pressing or pecking intensely because the next reward might always be one action away. It became the behavioral logic behind gambling-style reward systems.
11. 1940s — Nazi Human Experiments
    Prisoners in concentration camps were subjected to freezing, high-altitude pressure, infectious disease exposure, drug testing, forced wounds, sterilization, and surgeries without consent. These were not ethical experiments; they were torture and murder disguised as science. The horror helped lead to the Nuremberg Code.
12. Late 1940s–1950s — CIA Project BLUEBIRD
    BLUEBIRD explored whether interrogation, hypnosis, drugs, isolation, and psychological pressure could weaken resistance or affect memory and compliance. It marked a shift from academic psychology into intelligence-driven behavior-control research, where secrecy and national-security goals replaced normal consent protections.
13. Early 1950s — CIA Project ARTICHOKE
    ARTICHOKE expanded BLUEBIRD-style work into hypnosis, drugging, interrogation, amnesia, and attempts to test whether a person could be forced or manipulated into acting against their own will. The core issue was not therapy; it was control, compliance, and breaking resistance.
14. 1950s — Harry Harlow
    Harlow separated infant monkeys from their mothers and gave them artificial wire or cloth “mothers.” Some monkeys were placed in isolation chambers for long periods. The studies showed the importance of attachment, but they did so by deliberately producing fear, deprivation, abnormal behavior, and psychological damage.
15. 1950s–1960s — Robert G. Heath
    Heath implanted electrodes into psychiatric patients’ brains and stimulated areas linked to pleasure, emotion, arousal, aggression, and mood. Some experiments attempted to alter sexual behavior or emotional states. These studies are dark because they used invasive brain surgery to directly manipulate inner experience and behavior.
16. 1950s–1960s — José Delgado
    Delgado implanted radio-controlled electrodes, called “stimoceivers,” into animals’ brains. He could send signals remotely to affect movement, aggression, stopping behavior, or responses. His famous bull demonstration showed a charging bull stopped by brain stimulation, making the idea of electronic behavioral control visible to the public.
17. 1951–1956 — Solomon Asch
    Asch placed a real participant in a room with actors who intentionally gave wrong answers about obvious line lengths. Many participants agreed with the false group answer even when their own eyes showed the truth. The experiment showed how group pressure can make people deny reality to avoid standing alone.
18. 1953–1973 — CIA Project MKUltra
    MKUltra involved LSD, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, interrogation methods, and experiments on suggestibility and memory. Some people were allegedly dosed or studied without informed consent. It became one of the clearest examples of secret government experimentation crossing ethical lines.
19. 1961–1962 — Stanley Milgram
    Milgram told participants they were helping with a learning experiment, then had them deliver what they believed were increasingly painful electric shocks to another person. An authority figure calmly instructed them to continue. The experiment showed how authority can override conscience and push ordinary people into harmful obedience.
20. 1961–1963 — Albert Bandura
    Bandura had children watch adults punch, kick, hit with a mallet, and verbally abuse a Bobo doll. Later, many children copied the aggressive actions. The experiment showed that behavior, including aggression, can be learned by observation rather than direct reward.
21. 1960s — Martin Seligman & Steven Maier
    They exposed animals to unavoidable electric shocks, then later placed them in situations where escape was possible. Many animals failed to escape because they had learned that nothing they did mattered. The studies showed how repeated uncontrollable distress can train helplessness and passivity.
22. 1971 — Philip Zimbardo
    Zimbardo created a mock prison, assigning students to guard or prisoner roles. Guards gained power over prisoners through rules, punishment, humiliation, sleep disruption, and control of basic routines. The study was stopped early and became a warning about how institutions can create abusive behavior.
23. 1972 — Irving Janis
    Janis studied major political and military failures and argued that tight groups can pressure members into agreement. Dissent is discouraged, warnings are ignored, and the group convinces itself it is right. The danger is psychological conformity inside powerful institutions.
24. 1970s–1980s — Thought Reform / Coercive Persuasion Research
    Researchers studied systems that use isolation, confession, repetition, sleep pressure, fear, dependency, humiliation, group approval, and punishment to reshape identity and belief. This includes cult dynamics, indoctrination, prisoner control, and coercive group systems.
25. 1984 — Robert Cialdini
    Cialdini studied persuasion methods used by salespeople, advertisers, recruiters, fundraisers, and influence professionals. His principles included authority, scarcity, reciprocity, liking, commitment, and social proof. These are not torture methods, but they show how people can be steered without realizing the steering is happening.

26.1980s–2000s — Interrogation Psychology Controversies

Psychologists, intelligence agencies, and military organizations studied how stress, uncertainty, exhaustion, dependency, and environmental control affect human decision-making, resistance, memory, and compliance.

Rather than using rewards like Skinner’s experiments, these systems focused on removing a person’s sense of control.

Methods associated with these controversies included:

· Isolation — separating a person from normal social contact, support systems, and familiar environments.

· Sleep deprivation — reducing sleep to increase exhaustion and impair judgment.

· Sensory manipulation — constant light, darkness, noise, silence, temperature changes, or disorientation.

· Dependency creation — making access to information, comfort, food, communication, or relief dependent on cooperation.

· Fear and uncertainty — creating situations where the subject does not know what will happen next.

· Learned helplessness concepts — critics argued that some interrogation strategies appeared to rely on creating feelings of powerlessness similar to those studied in learned helplessness research.

Unlike Pavlov or Skinner, the goal was not simply to observe behavior but to determine how psychological pressure could weaken resistance and increase compliance.

The controversy emerged because psychological knowledge developed for understanding human behavior was being applied in settings where the purpose was not treatment or education, but interrogation and control.

27. 2000s–Present — Digital Behavioral Engineering

Modern technology platforms moved behavioral science out of laboratories and into everyday life.

Instead of studying dozens of subjects, companies can now measure and influence the behavior of millions of users in real time.

Many of the mechanisms have direct roots in earlier psychological research:

Pavlov — Triggers and Conditioning

· Notification sounds.

· Vibrations.

· Visual badges.

· Alerts.

Over time these cues can trigger automatic checking behavior.

Skinner — Variable-Ratio Reinforcement

· Refreshing a feed.

· Checking messages.

· Looking for likes or comments.

Most checks produce little reward, but occasional rewarding content encourages repeated checking.

Asch — Social Pressure

· Public reactions.

· Likes.

· Follower counts.

· Trending opinions.

People can be influenced by seeing what large groups appear to approve of.

Bandura — Social Modeling

· Viral trends.

· Influencer behavior.

· Copycat challenges.

People learn behavior by observing others.

Cialdini — Persuasion Principles

· Social proof.

· Authority.

· Scarcity.

· Commitment.

These principles are often embedded into interface design.

Specific mechanisms include:

· Infinite scroll.

· Autoplay.

· Push notifications.

· Recommendation algorithms.

· Streak systems.

· Engagement rankings.

· Personalized content feeds.

The system constantly measures:

· What captures attention.

· What produces engagement.

· What keeps people returning.

The environment is then adjusted based on those measurements.

Critics describe this as behavioral engineering because the system is not merely observing behavior — it is continuously testing, measuring, and modifying conditions to influence future behavior at population scale.

28. 2000s–2010s — James Mitchell, Bruce Jessen, APA / National-Security Interrogation Psychology
Psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen were linked to the CIA’s post-9/11 “enhanced interrogation” program. Their methods involved psychological and physical pressure tactics such as isolation, sleep deprivation, stress positions, fear, sensory manipulation, and dependency to weaken resistance and increase compliance. The controversy became bigger when the American Psychological Association faced scrutiny over psychologists’ involvement in national-security interrogations; APA later banned psychologists from participating in such interrogations.

29.1997–Present — B.J. Fogg / Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab — Captology & Behavior Design
B.J. Fogg founded Stanford’s Persuasive Technology Lab and developed the field sometimes called captology, meaning computers as persuasive technologies. His work studied how websites, software, mobile devices, and interactive systems can be designed to change people’s attitudes and behavior through prompts, triggers, feedback, habit loops, and reinforcement. This connects Skinner-style reinforcement, Pavlov-style triggers, and social influence research to modern apps, notifications, feeds, streaks, likes, and recommendation systems.

Table Of Contents

“It’s Your Behavior”: Behavioral Control, Family Psychology, Religious Slavery, and the Worldwide Cage Called Help

“It’s your behavior.” — Michael Patrick Huntley, 2001

Ewen Cameron, MKULTRA, and the Psychiatric Fantasy of Reprogramming a Human Being

Psychic Driving: Repetition as an Invasion of the Mind

Depatterning: Breaking the Person Before Calling It Treatment

Shock, Sleep, Drugs, Isolation, and Repetition

The Damage to Patients and Families

Cameron as the Warning Sign

The Bridge to My Life

Minnesota 1939: Sexual Psychopathic Personality and the Labeling Machine

Mary Tudor, Wendell Johnson, and the Monster Study

Homosexuality, DSM History, and the Psychiatry of “Correction

Alan Turing: Genius Punished as Defective

Aversion Therapy and Shock as “Treatment”

California, UCLA, and Behavioral Modification of Children

The Government Ratchet

Born on Castle Air Force Base

The Perelman Family Psychology Machine

“You Think Differently”: The Family Label as a Life Sentence

Ron Perelman, the Shock Collar, and the Family Philosophy of Control

The Laugh as the Cover-Up: Teaching the Child That Abuse Is Normal

Pavlov, Conditioning, and the Manufactured Reaction

The Manufactured Disease

The Childhood Hypocrisy: Kissing a Black Girl Becomes “Behavior”

The Spanish Inquisition Logic: Confess to What We Invented

The Outward Defamation: “Our Child Is Crazy”

Worldwide Dissemination: Nowhere Left to Go

Roadie Morales, Michael Patrick Huntley, and the Behavior Trap

“It’s Your Behavior”: The Whip Phrase

Manufacturing Reckless and Out-of-Control Behavior

Setups, Frame Jobs, Arrests, and Control

Rehabilitation as Ownership

This Is Not Past Tense

The Bigger Picture: Worldwide Mental Battering

Religious Hypocrisy, Child Molestation Rings, and Institutional Protection

The Sex-Trafficking Analogy: Taking a Child Into a System of Ownership

Targeting a Child Through Family, Court, and Religion

Devout Appearance, Criminal Conduct

Ritual Does Not Cancel the Crime

Then Religion Enters as the Cleanup Crew

The Aleph Institute and the Religious-Legal Enforcement Layer

The Judicial and Religious Friendship Problem

Pre-Crime as a Cult Belief

Priming the Crowd

The White-Group Empathy Layer

Religious Slavery: The Final Ownership Model

The Worldwide Isolation Prison

Why They Never Stop

The Real Ending

“It’s your behavior.” — Michael Patrick Huntley, 2001

That was the phrase. Not a diagnosis, not a legal charge, not evidence, and not a fact. A phrase. A weapon phrase. A phrase used to take everything done to me, everything staged around me, everything provoked in me, and everything manufactured against me, and push all of it back onto Kevin Perelman as if the reaction was the origin.

“It’s your behavior” is how the machine speaks. It creates the condition, waits for the reaction, erases the condition, and calls the reaction proof. It creates the dirt, then sells the bath. It manufactures the disease, then sells itself as the cure.

Before this ever rotates into religion, rabbis, the Aleph Institute, Jewish community pressure, or court-connected “help,” it begins with something older and uglier: the belief that human beings can be labeled, conditioned, corrected, shocked, shamed, isolated, and forced into submission. That is the real foundation. Not religion first. Behavior control first. Psychology first. Government experimentation first. Family labeling first. Then religion later becomes one of the costumes.

That is why this story has to start with psychology, psychiatry, government behavior control, and family ownership before it ever gets to rabbis, courts, or religious “cleanup.”

Ewen Cameron, MKULTRA, and the Psychiatric Fantasy of Reprogramming a Human Being

One of the clearest historical examples of behavioral-control thinking is Dr. Donald Ewen Cameron. Cameron was not some random fringe figure. He was a major psychiatrist. He worked at the Allan Memorial Institute at McGill University in Montreal and became associated with what are now known as the Montreal Experiments, connected to MKULTRA.

That is important because Cameron shows what happens when psychiatry stops treating the person as a human being and starts treating the person as a system to be broken, erased, rewritten, and controlled.

Cameron’s work involved methods described as depatterning and psychic driving. Those words sound clinical, but the reality was brutal. Depatterning meant trying to break down a person’s existing personality, memory, identity, emotional structure, and mental patterns. Psychic driving meant forcing repeated messages into the person’s mind, often through recorded loops played over and over again, while the person was already weakened, drugged, shocked, confused, isolated, or otherwise made vulnerable.

This was not ordinary therapy. This was not a conversation between doctor and patient. This was not someone sitting across from a psychiatrist and voluntarily working through trauma.

This was psychiatric domination.

Patients came into the Allan Memorial Institute for problems like anxiety, depression, postpartum depression, or other psychological suffering. Many came expecting treatment. Instead, Cameron’s methods tried to push them into a state where the old self could supposedly be broken down and a new self could be installed.

That is the fantasy at the center of Cameron’s work: destroy the person first, then rebuild the person into what the controller wants.

The methods included intense electroshock, drug-induced sleep, sensory deprivation, heavy medication, and repeated audio messages. People could be kept asleep or semi-conscious for extended periods. Their normal defenses, memory, orientation, and sense of identity could be weakened. Then repeated messages were pushed into them as if the human mind were a machine that could be erased and reprogrammed.

That is why Cameron matters.

He represents the nightmare version of psychiatry: the belief that a human being can be broken down, stripped of identity, and rebuilt into something the controller wants.

That is not healing. That is ownership.

The damage was not theoretical. The reports about Cameron’s patients describe people leaving worse than they arrived. Some suffered memory loss. Some lost ordinary functioning. Some reportedly forgot basic parts of their lives or identities. Families were damaged because the person who entered the hospital was not the same person who came out.

That is the part that matters for this article.

Cameron’s experiments show that abuse can be disguised as treatment. A hospital can become a laboratory. A doctor can become a controller. A patient can become raw material. A clinical vocabulary can hide an act of destruction.

The outside world hears words like “therapy,” “treatment,” “research,” “depatterning,” “repatterning,” “psychic driving,” and “behavioral modification.” But underneath those words is the same basic structure: break the person, overwhelm the person, confuse the person, isolate the person, repeat messages into the person, and then call the result care.

That is the danger of psychological authority without moral limits.

Psychic Driving: Repetition as an Invasion of the Mind

Psychic driving is especially important because it connects directly to the larger pattern of repeated messaging, repeated labeling, and repeated psychological pressure.

The idea was simple and horrifying: repeat a message enough times, under the right conditions, and the person’s mind might begin to absorb it. The message does not have to be true. The message does not have to be earned. The message does not have to come from evidence. It just has to be repeated while the target is weakened.

That is why repetition is so dangerous.

A person can be told once, “You are sick,” and reject it.

But if the family says it, the school repeats it, the police act on it, the courts accept it, the religious actors moralize it, the neighbors whisper it, and the public performs it, then the message becomes an environment.

That is the social version of psychic driving.

The message is no longer only spoken. It is staged. It is acted out. It is repeated by strangers. It is hinted in public. It is reflected back through institutions. It follows the person until the person begins to feel surrounded by the message.

Kevin is unstable.

Kevin thinks differently.

Kevin does not know how the world works.

Kevin needs help.

Kevin is behavior.

Kevin is dangerous.

Kevin must be watched.

That is how a label becomes psychological weather.

The person is not merely hearing an accusation. The person is living inside an accusation. The repetition itself becomes the weapon.

Depatterning: Breaking the Person Before Calling It Treatment

Depatterning is the other key concept.

Cameron’s depatterning idea was not simply to help a person improve. It was to break down existing patterns. In moral terms, it was an attempt to attack the person’s continuity: memory, identity, emotional stability, sense of self, and connection to ordinary life.

That matters because the same logic can appear outside a hospital.

A person can be depatterned socially. A person can be depatterned through family pressure, public humiliation, false police contact, legal threats, religious coercion, isolation, and nonstop contradiction. The person’s normal life is disrupted. His friendships are poisoned. His dating is destroyed. His reputation is attacked. His movements are interpreted as suspicious. His reactions are collected. His identity is rewritten by people who claim authority over him.

That is not therapy, but it follows the same logic: break the person’s normal pattern, then claim the brokenness proves the original label.

If the target is calm, increase pressure. If the target walks away, follow with the label. If the target explains, call the explanation illness. If the target becomes angry, call the anger dangerous. If the target becomes exhausted, call the exhaustion instability. If the target becomes isolated, call the isolation proof that something is wrong with him.

That is depatterning without a hospital bed.

It is the destruction of ordinary life until the target no longer has a stable social reality to stand on.

Shock, Sleep, Drugs, Isolation, and Repetition

Cameron’s methods matter because they show the components of a control system.

Shock weakens the person.

Sleep or exhaustion weakens the person.

Drugs weaken the person.

Isolation weakens the person.

Repeated messaging invades the person.

Authority defines the person.

The institution protects the controller.

The victim’s suffering is then treated as part of the process.

That is the formula.

In Cameron’s case, the tools were medical: electroshock, drug-induced sleep, sensory deprivation, psychiatric authority, repeated tapes, and institutional confinement.

In my account, the tools are social, legal, psychological, religious, and public: family labeling, defamation, stalking, provocation, police pressure, court pressure, neighborhood watch priming, religious coercion, public humiliation, and repeated messages that follow me from place to place.

The tools are different. The moral structure is the same.

Break the person.

Repeat the label.

Control the environment.

Use authority.

Call the reaction proof.

Call the control help.

He is not included to claim that every later act is literally MKULTRA. He is included because he exposes the governing fantasy: that a human being can be broken down and remade by people who claim superior authority over his mind.

The Damage to Patients and Families

The harm from Cameron’s work was not only personal. It reached families. When a person is psychologically damaged, memory-damaged, identity-damaged, or made unable to function normally, the whole family system around that person is damaged too.

That is another reason Cameron matters.

Behavioral control experiments are never isolated to the target alone. They damage everyone connected to the target. They damage trust. They damage reality. They damage the person’s ability to relate to others. They damage the family’s ability to understand what happened. They create confusion, grief, dependency, and long-term consequences.

In my account, the same principle applies. When a false label is placed on a child and then disseminated through family, schools, police, courts, religious actors, and public groups, the damage does not stay private. It poisons every relationship around the child. It teaches other people to misread him. It turns normal social life into a controlled experiment. It turns family into observers, friends into informants, strangers into participants, and institutions into enforcers.

The target is damaged, but so is the world around him.

That is how a person becomes trapped inside a false reality built by others.

Cameron as the Warning Sign

Cameron is the warning sign because he shows how respectable institutions can become abusive when authority is allowed to override the human being.

He had credentials.

He had status.

He had institutional backing.

He had clinical language.

He had research language.

He had patients who trusted the system.

And yet the result was destruction.

That is the point.

Credentialed people can do monstrous things when they decide the person in front of them is not fully sovereign. Institutions can do monstrous things when they decide a human being is a project. Families can do monstrous things when they decide a child is defective. Courts can do monstrous things when they accept a label instead of examining the origin of the label. Religious actors can do monstrous things when they call control “help.”

Cameron shows the danger of a controller with a theory.

Once the theory exists, the person disappears.

The theory explains the person.

The theory replaces the person.

The theory justifies the harm.

And when the person screams, resists, breaks, forgets, collapses, becomes terrified, becomes angry, or becomes unable to function, the controller says the theory was right.

That is the moral crime.

The Bridge to My Life

The point is not that Donald Ewen Cameron personally had anything to do with Kevin Perelman.

The point is that Cameron exposes the mentality behind behavioral control systems.

The mentality says the person is not a person. The person is a problem to be corrected. The person is a pattern to be broken. The person is a mind to be rewritten. The person is a behavior to be modified. The person is an identity to be replaced.

That is the same mentality I allege operates through my family, through psychological labeling, through court and police pressure, through public priming, and later through religious “rehabilitation” language.

In Cameron’s world, the patient enters a hospital and is broken down in the name of treatment.

In my world, the child enters life and is allegedly broken down through family labeling, public humiliation, police and court pressure, religious coercion, and worldwide dissemination.

Cameron used shock, sleep, drugs, isolation, and repeated tapes.

This system uses social shock, exhaustion, fear, isolation, repeated labels, public signals, legal threats, religious pressure, and community enforcement.

Different tools.

Same fantasy.

Break the person, rewrite the person, then call the cage help.

Minnesota 1939: Sexual Psychopathic Personality and the Labeling Machine

After Cameron, the next warning is Minnesota. In 1939, Minnesota created a psychopathic personality framework that later became tied to sexual psychopathic personality commitment. This matters because it shows how a psychological label can become a legal cage.

The danger is not only the words themselves. The danger is the way the words travel. A person is first described as frightening. Then the fear is given psychiatric language. Then the psychiatric language is given legal power. Then the legal power is used to justify confinement. At each step, the label becomes more official-looking, more difficult to challenge, and more damaging to the person being labeled.

That is the government ratchet.

The person is no longer being judged only by a specific act. The person becomes a type. A category. A diagnosis. A public danger. A person whose inner life, impulses, personality, judgment, and future are treated as suspicious. Once the state accepts that kind of label, the question changes. It is no longer only, “What happened?” It becomes, “What kind of person are we saying he is?”

That is where the abuse begins.

Once a person is turned into a dangerous type, every ordinary human reaction can be reinterpreted as proof. Denial can be called lack of insight. Fear can be called instability. Anger can be called dangerousness. Confusion can be called mental defect. Refusal can be called manipulation. Silence can be called concealment. Defending yourself can be called evidence that you still do not understand what is wrong with you.

That is why this kind of legal-psychiatric label is so destructive. It does not merely accuse the person. It surrounds the person. It changes how every future act is read. It makes the person fight not only an allegation, but an identity that has been imposed on him.

That is a different kind of pain.

It is not only the pain of being accused. It is the pain of being pre-classified. It is the pain of realizing that the system no longer sees you as a human being responding to circumstances. It sees you as a category expressing symptoms. Once that happens, anything you do can be forced back into the label.

If you object, that is behavior.

If you explain, that is behavior.

If you become angry, that is behavior.

If you become afraid, that is behavior.

If you withdraw, that is behavior.

If you try to prove the label is false, even that becomes behavior.

That is the cage.

The Minnesota example matters because it shows that this is not some imaginary concern. American legal systems have used psychiatric-sounding categories to justify confinement and control. A label can become the bridge between public fear and state custody. A label can turn moral panic into official action. A label can make extreme power look reasonable.

This is the part that connects to my life. In my account, the problem is not simply that people disliked Kevin Perelman. The problem is that people allegedly tried to convert dislike, fear, shame, and family hostility into an official identity. Once Kevin is labeled as unstable, dangerous, reckless, mentally ill, impulsive, or out of control, the label becomes the lens through which police, courts, family, religious actors, neighbors, and strangers can read everything.

That is how the label becomes more powerful than reality.

The system does not have to prove the original story every time. It only has to keep the category alive. Once the category is alive, every reaction feeds it. Every accusation strengthens it. Every record created under the label becomes “history.” Every police contact becomes “pattern.” Every court action becomes “proof.” Every emotional response becomes “danger.”

That is the legal-psychiatric horror: the person is not fighting an event. He is fighting a manufactured identity.

Mary Tudor, Wendell Johnson, and the Monster Study

The next historical warning is the 1939 Monster Study. Mary Tudor, working under Wendell Johnson at the University of Iowa, conducted a study involving children and speech labeling. Some children were reportedly given negative speech feedback or labeled in ways that harmed them psychologically.

This matters because it shows how damaging adult labeling can be when the target is a child.

A child does not have the defenses of an adult. A child does not understand institutional theory, family psychology, academic experiments, legal categories, or adult agendas. A child believes adults. A child absorbs tone, shame, fear, disgust, correction, and judgment before he has the language to challenge any of it.

That is why labeling a child is so dangerous.

If adults repeatedly tell a child that something is wrong with him, the child may begin to experience himself through that accusation. If adults watch him as defective, he may begin to feel defective. If adults correct him constantly, he may begin to fear his own normal behavior. If adults treat speech, emotion, movement, affection, anger, or creativity as suspicious, the child learns that being himself is dangerous.

That is not education. That is psychological injury.

The Monster Study matters because the injury was not a broken bone or a visible bruise. The injury was internal. The injury was self-consciousness, fear, inhibition, shame, and damage to the child’s confidence. That is the kind of injury people underestimate because it does not always leave blood on the floor. But it can follow a person for life.

A child who is labeled may begin monitoring himself. He may hesitate before speaking. He may feel watched. He may feel that every mistake proves something terrible. He may become anxious because the adults have turned normal behavior into a test. He may become quiet, not because quiet is his nature, but because the adults have made expression unsafe.

That is the connection.

Minnesota shows the legal-psychiatric power of labeling adults as dangerous types. The Monster Study shows the childhood version: adults placing a label on children and then watching the damage as if the child’s suffering proves the theory.

That is not care. That is not moral science. That is adults experimenting with a child’s identity.

In my life, that is the central issue. The label came first. The interpretation came first. The adult theory came first. From there, ordinary childhood behavior, imperfection, anxiety, sensitivity, fear, creativity, speech, emotion, and reaction could all be interpreted through the label. That is how a child becomes a psychological project, and how the label becomes the injury.

Once that happens, the child is no longer allowed to grow normally. He is studied. Interpreted. Corrected. Watched. Teased. Mocked. Compared. Judged. His mistakes are not mistakes. They are evidence. His fear is not fear. It is pathology. His anger is not a response. It is danger. His confusion is not confusion. It is proof that the adults were right.

That is mentally disorienting. It teaches the child that his own perception cannot be trusted. It teaches him that the adults’ story matters more than his reality. It teaches him that if he feels harmed, the harm is his fault. It teaches him that if he speaks, his speech will be used against him.

That is how a child is trained into self-doubt.

And once self-doubt is installed, the adult controller has enormous power. The child spends years trying to figure out what he did wrong, when the real problem is that adults placed him inside a false theory before he was old enough to defend himself.

Homosexuality, DSM History, and the Psychiatry of “Correction”

The psychology and psychiatry communities also have their own history of labeling difference, sexuality, nonconformity, and human imperfection as sickness. For decades, homosexuality itself was treated by psychiatry as a disorder. In the 1952 DSM-I, homosexuality was classified under sociopathic personality disturbance. In DSM-II, homosexuality was reclassified as a sexual deviation before the diagnosis was later removed.

That timeline matters because it shows how much authority depends on the era, the culture, and the people holding institutional power. A thing can be labeled sickness for decades and later recognized as a misclassification rooted in prejudice, fear, and social control. That should make every reader cautious when institutions claim that difference automatically equals disorder.

The point is not that Kevin Perelman is gay. The point is the mechanism.

Religion called certain people sinful. Law called certain people criminal. Psychiatry called certain people disordered. Families called certain people shameful. Then “treatment” became punishment. Shame became morality. Coercion became guidance. Control became help.

That is the pattern.

The pain in this system is not only that a person is called sick. The pain is that the label reaches into every private part of life. Love becomes suspect. Desire becomes evidence. Friendship becomes suspicious. Affection becomes dangerous. Childhood curiosity becomes pathology. Dating becomes a family or religious scandal. A normal human bond becomes something to be corrected, hidden, punished, or confessed.

That is how a person’s private life is taken away.

When authority declares a human trait unacceptable, it does not stop at the trait. It begins to invade the person’s whole identity. The person is no longer allowed to simply be. He is required to explain himself. Defend himself. Prove himself. Confess. Reform. Submit. Accept treatment. Accept guidance. Accept the group’s definition of him.

That is why DSM history matters here. It shows that psychiatry has not always been neutral. It has sometimes reflected the fears, prejudices, and moral assumptions of its time. A diagnosis can look scientific while carrying the cultural bias of the people who created it.

That is the danger.

If a family, school, court, police department, religious network, or psychology community decides that Kevin’s difference is disease, then ordinary life becomes clinical evidence. If Kevin has trichotillomania, anxiety, sensitivity, imperfection, creative intensity, fear, anger, originality, or ordinary human difference, the controlling mind can say, “Something is wrong with him.”

Then the correction machine begins.

The person is not asked, “What happened to you?” The person is told, “This is what you are.” He is not asked why he is afraid. He is told fear is pathology. He is not asked why he is angry. He is told anger is danger. He is not asked why he feels watched. He is told observation is delusion. He is not asked why he cannot trust. He is told mistrust is illness.

That is how difference becomes disease. That is how a child becomes a case. That is how a child becomes property.

Alan Turing: Genius Punished as Defective

Alan Turing is one of the clearest examples of the state punishing human difference. Turing helped break the German Enigma code during World War II and became one of the foundational figures in computer science. But in 1952, he was convicted in Britain for homosexual activity, which was illegal at the time. He was subjected to hormone treatment, often described as chemical castration, and was later formally pardoned.

Turing matters because he shows the cruelty of official wrongness.

A person can be brilliant, useful, patriotic, disciplined, and historically important, and still be destroyed by a system that has decided he is morally or medically defective. The state does not need to see the whole person when it has already chosen the label. The label replaces the person.

That is the pain.

The person’s achievements do not save him. His intelligence does not save him. His service does not save him. His humanity does not save him. Once the approved institutions decide that one part of him is unacceptable, the entire person can be punished through that part.

That is what makes Turing’s case so important to this article. It shows that a person can be right about himself while the government, courts, medicine, and public morality are wrong about him. It shows that official systems can be confident, coordinated, and destructive while still being morally wrong.

Turing was not punished because he lacked value. He was punished because the state and society defined him as unacceptable.

That is the warning.

A person can be correct, and the system can still crush him. A person can be healthy, and the system can still call him sick. A person can be valuable, and the system can still treat him as disposable. A person can be telling the truth, and the official story can still bury him.

That is why Turing belongs in this discussion. He shows how law, medicine, sexuality, morality, and state power can combine to punish a person for existing outside the approved model.

The connection is not that Kevin Perelman is Alan Turing. The connection is that official labels can be catastrophically wrong. And when the label is backed by law, medicine, religion, family, and public shame, the person may spend years fighting a lie that everyone else has been taught to respect.

Aversion Therapy and Shock as “Treatment”

The same correction mentality appeared in aversion therapy. In the mid-20th century, some therapists and researchers attempted to “treat” homosexuality using aversive methods, including nausea-inducing drugs and electric shocks.

That history needs to be understood at the level of pain.

Aversion therapy is not just an idea. It is the deliberate pairing of identity, desire, emotion, or behavior with suffering. The person is exposed to something connected to the forbidden part of himself, and then pain, nausea, fear, shame, or shock is applied. The goal is to make the person’s own body turn against him.

That is a horrifying form of control.

It teaches the person: what you feel is dangerous. What you want is disgusting. What you are is punishable. Your own body is evidence against you. Your own emotions must be feared. Your own attraction, expression, or identity must be associated with pain.

Then the institution calls that treatment.

That is the fraud.

The pain is not incidental. The pain is the method. The humiliation is not incidental. The humiliation is the method. The fear is not incidental. The fear is the method. The goal is to make the person internalize the punishment so deeply that he begins punishing himself.

That is how external control becomes internal control.

Again, the point here is not that Kevin Perelman is gay. The point is the mechanism. Define difference as sickness. Define nonconformity as defect. Define disobedience as pathology. Define imperfection as disease. Then punish the person into “correction.”

That mechanism can be moved from one category to another. It can be used against sexuality, emotion, creativity, anger, dating, speech, movement, friendships, public life, family loyalty, religion, or any behavior the controlling group decides to pathologize.

In my account, that is exactly the danger. The shock does not have to be an electrical device. The shock can be social. Public humiliation. Repeated threats. False police contact. Family shame. Dating destruction. Religious intimidation. Court pressure. Strangers repeating private information. People laughing and calling it teasing. The body learns that normal life brings punishment.

That is social aversion therapy.

Go outside, get punished.

Talk to someone, get punished.

Date, get punished.

Create art, get punished.

Take a walk, get punished.

Get angry, get punished.

Object, get punished.

Document it, get punished.

Then the system says, “Why are you afraid of normal life?”

Because normal life has been turned into a punishment chamber.

That is why this history belongs here. Aversion therapy shows the logic of correction through pain. My allegation is that the same logic is being applied socially, legally, psychologically, and religiously.

California, UCLA, and Behavioral Modification of Children

The California pattern matters too. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, behavior-modification work at UCLA included attempts to alter gender-nonconforming behavior in children. The published language itself treated certain child behavior as deviant sex-role behavior to be changed through behavioral methods.

This matters because it shows the child version of correction ideology.

The child does not fit. The parents are worried. The experts step in. The behavior is measured. The behavior is rewarded or punished. The child is taught to perform the approved identity.

That may sound clinical from a distance. Up close, it is terrifying.

A child learns that adults are watching how he moves, talks, plays, gestures, chooses toys, expresses emotion, and relates to others. The child learns that approval is conditional. The child learns that love, safety, and acceptance depend on performance. The child learns that there is a correct way to exist and that the adults will punish or withdraw from him if he fails to perform it.

That is not normal guidance. That is identity control.

The child is not being helped to become himself. The child is being trained to become the adult-approved version of himself. The child’s spontaneous behavior becomes data. His play becomes evidence. His body language becomes evidence. His voice becomes evidence. His friendships become evidence. His emotions become evidence.

That is how a child becomes a lab.

Again, the point is not that Kevin Perelman is gay or transgender. The point is the mechanism. A child is defined as wrong, watched, corrected, punished for not fitting the approved model, and trained to suppress whatever the adults do not like.

That same mechanism can be applied to any child whom a family wants to control.

A sensitive child.

An anxious child.

A creative child.

A child with trichotillomania.

A child who kisses a Black girl.

A child who does not match the family’s preferred religious or cultural fantasy.

A child who embarrasses the family.

A child the family wants to label, reshape, or erase.

That is the same mentality. Different label. Same machine.

The child is not only corrected. The child is taught that the adults own the meaning of his behavior. If he is happy, they can define the happiness. If he is afraid, they can define the fear. If he is affectionate, they can define the affection. If he is angry, they can define the anger. If he is quiet, they can define the silence.

That is psychological ownership.

And once that ownership is established in childhood, it can follow the person for decades. The family can continue interpreting him. Schools can continue interpreting him. Courts can continue interpreting him. Police can continue interpreting him. Religious actors can continue interpreting him. The original child-label becomes the adult cage.

That is why these examples matter. Minnesota shows the legal cage. Mary Tudor shows the child-label injury. DSM history shows difference being turned into diagnosis. Turing shows the state punishing human difference. Aversion therapy shows pain being sold as cure. UCLA shows children being behaviorally corrected for failing to fit an approved model.

Together, they show the same structure: adults and institutions deciding that a human being is wrong, then using the language of treatment, morality, science, law, or help to justify control.

The Government Ratchet

This is the historical sequence the reader has to understand. Cameron shows psychiatry and government interest in breaking down and reprogramming people. Minnesota’s 1939 sexual psychopathic personality law shows psychiatric labeling tied to confinement and state custody. Mary Tudor and Wendell Johnson’s Monster Study shows children being harmed by adult labels. The DSM history shows homosexuality being officially pathologized as mental disorder until the 1970s. Alan Turing shows the state punishing a person for being outside the approved sexual and moral model. Aversion therapy shows pain being sold as treatment. California behavior-modification history shows children being corrected for failing to match adult-approved identity expectations.

That is the government ratchet: label difference, pathologize difference, criminalize difference, condition difference, punish difference, call the punishment treatment, and call the treatment help.

That is the thought process of the era. That is the atmosphere surrounding a child born in 1972 into a family with psychology language, medical status, and access to institutions. So when the Perelman family allegedly looked at Kevin Perelman and decided something was wrong, they were not operating in a vacuum. They were operating inside a culture where psychiatry had already labeled human difference as disease, government had already studied behavioral modification, states had already used psychiatric labels for confinement, and researchers had already experimented with correcting children to be like them.

That is why this is not some random family dispute. It belongs inside a much larger history of labeling, correction, control, and institutional violence.

Born on Castle Air Force Base

I was born on Castle Air Force Base in 1972. That fact matters symbolically and historically because this story is not only about one private family sitting around a dinner table gossiping. It is about a child allegedly born into a world where military, government, psychology, medicine, police, courts, and family status could overlap.

By 1977, when I was about five years old, I allege the labeling and monitoring structure had already begun. I was not old enough to deserve a label. I was not old enough to be a criminal. I was not old enough to be a political threat. I was not old enough to be a danger to society. I was a child.

So if adults began building a lifelong interpretation system around me at that age, then the problem was not my behavior. The problem was the adults and the institutions that accepted the label.

The Perelman Family Psychology Machine

That is the world the Perelman family allegedly borrowed from: label first, watch second, punish third, call the punishment help.

My mother, Anita Perelman, had an art-therapy and psychology background and worked at Cedars-Sinai. My father, Ron Perelman, was an orthopedic surgeon with a secondary psychology background. My brother, Jason Perelman, had medical and psychology-related background.

This matters because the family had the language to make ordinary life sound clinical. They had the vocabulary to make difference sound like disease. They had the social status to make accusation sound like concern. They had enough psychology language to create a pseudo-clinical identity around me without the ethics, consent, neutrality, or accountability of a legitimate clinical process.

That is the beginning. The Perelman family does not merely criticize me. In my account, they create the frame. They create the label. They create the interpretation. They create the idea that Kevin Perelman is something to be feared, fixed, corrected, watched, cleaned up, or controlled.

Then, once the label exists, everything can be forced into it. If I am friendly, it is behavior. If I am quiet, it is behavior. If I date, it is behavior. If I do not date, it is behavior. If I create art, it is behavior. If I get angry after being provoked, it is behavior. If I walk away, it is behavior. If I ask why, it is behavior. If I document the abuse, it is behavior.

Everything becomes evidence because the conclusion has already been written. That is not psychology. That is psychological ownership.

“You Think Differently”: The Family Label as a Life Sentence

Ron Perelman’s statements matter because they show how the family label is framed.

“You think differently.”

“You don’t know how the world works.”

On the surface, those phrases can sound like parental criticism or life advice. But inside this system, they are much more dangerous. They do not identify a specific act. They define the person. They tell the world that Kevin is not merely wrong about something, but wrong as a human being.

That is the difference between criticism and labeling. A normal parent says, “You made a mistake.” A controlling parent says, “You think differently.” A normal parent says, “Here is what happened.” A controlling parent says, “You do not understand reality.” A normal parent corrects behavior. A controlling parent creates a permanent identity defect.

That is how the cage is built.

Once the family says Kevin “thinks differently,” every normal act can be interpreted as abnormal. Every disagreement becomes proof. Every objection becomes proof. Every emotional reaction becomes proof. Every attempt to explain becomes proof. Every refusal to submit becomes proof.

That phrase becomes a permission slip for everyone else to treat Kevin as defective before he even speaks.

And “you don’t know how the world works” carries the same poison. It does not mean the family is patiently teaching life experience. It means the family is claiming authority over reality itself. It means: we define the world, we define your place in it, and if you disagree with our version, that proves you are the one who does not understand.

That is psychological ownership. The family is not simply saying, “We disagree with Kevin.” They are saying, “Kevin’s mind is wrong.” Once that story is accepted, police, courts, teachers, rabbis, neighbors, friends, and strangers can all be recruited into the same interpretation system.

This is how the phrase “it’s your behavior” connects to “you think differently.” First they define the mind as defective. Then they define every act as behavior. Then they define every reaction as proof. Then they call the cage help.

Ron Perelman, the Shock Collar, and the Family Philosophy of Control

The clearest family symbol is the shock collar. My father, Ron Perelman, had a Rhodesian Ridgeback named Rhoda. He did not want the dog going into the kitchen when the family was eating. Instead of patience, communication, humane training, or basic boundary-setting, he used a shock collar. Eventually, that progressed into a perimeter shock collar with a remote button.

That matters because it reveals a mindset. When the subject does not behave the way the controller wants, the controller inflicts pain. The message is not, “Let me teach you.” The message is, “I will hurt you until you stop.”

That is the model: reward and punishment, pain and compliance, behavior and correction. The dog receives the shock. The dog learns the boundary. The controller holds the button.

But what happens when the button never stops? What happens when the dog leaves the kitchen, and the shock still comes? What happens when the child behaves, and the shock still comes? What happens when the adult goes to school, goes to work, goes to the gym, takes a walk, dates someone, avoids conflict, makes art, builds websites, tries to be friendly, tries to be healthy, tries to live normally — and the shock still comes?

Then it is no longer correction. It is torture.

That is the human shock collar. A person is not wearing a device around his neck. The collar is made of people.

A stranger repeats private information. A friend reports back to the family. A teacher watches differently. A date becomes a false story. A public place becomes a stage. A police officer makes a threat. A rabbi becomes a handler. A judge protects the lie. Someone laughs and says it is teasing. Someone says, “It’s your behavior.”

Shock.

That is the operating system. The family presses the button. The community presses the button. The police press the button. The court presses the button. The religious network presses the button. Then they erase the button and call the distress proof.

The Laugh as the Cover-Up: Teaching the Child That Abuse Is Normal

The laughing is not a side detail. The laughing is the method. The teasing is not harmless. The teasing is the way they commit the harm while denying responsibility.

When this begins with a child, the “joking” becomes even more dangerous. A child does not automatically know what is normal and what is abuse. If adults repeatedly humiliate, provoke, confuse, shame, or frighten the child, and then tell the child it is only joking, only teasing, only playing around, the child is being trained to misread abuse as normal life.

That is brainwashing.

The child learns to doubt his own instincts. He feels something is wrong, but everyone laughs. He feels attacked, but everyone says he is too sensitive. He feels humiliated, but everyone says it is a joke. He feels targeted, but everyone says he is imagining it. Over time, the child is trained to accept cruelty as normal and to blame himself for noticing it.

That is how the abuse hides.

They do not only hurt the child. They teach the child that being hurt is ordinary. They teach the child that objecting is the real problem. They teach the child that humiliation is humor, fear is sensitivity, anger is instability, and self-defense is bad behavior.

Then, years later, when Kevin Perelman finally names the pattern, the same people say, “Why are you making such a big deal out of it? We were only joking.”

No. A joke does not last fifty years. A joke does not involve courts. A joke does not involve stalking police with stalking communities and neighbors, A joke does not involve police. A joke does not involve the Jewish communities, and rabbis. A joke does not involve psychiatric labels and the psychology community. A joke does not involve worldwide isolation. A joke does not destroy dating, friendship, employment, creativity, public life, and reputation.

The joke is the cover story. The teasing is the disguise. The laughter is the weapon.

This is how a child is conditioned to accept a cage before he even knows he is inside one.

Pavlov, Conditioning, and the Manufactured Reaction

Psychology already knows that behavior can be conditioned. Pavlov showed association. Skinner showed operant conditioning. Punishment and reward can shape behavior. Fear can be paired with signals. Pain can be paired with places. Humiliation can be paired with public spaces. Threats can be paired with dating, work, art, social life, or speech.

That is why idea-of-reference tactics are so dangerous. A phrase is repeated. A color is repeated. A gesture is repeated. A whistle is repeated. A private detail is repeated. A public place becomes associated with fear. A normal activity becomes associated with punishment.

Then, when the person reacts to years of conditioning, the system says, “See? He is paranoid.”

No. That is not paranoia. That is conditioning.

Create the signals. Create the shocks. Create the fear. Create the association. Then call the association mental illness. That is behavioral control.

The Manufactured Disease

The family and its surrounding systems cannot simply say, “We want to own Kevin Perelman.” So they need a disease. They need a defect. They need a personality story. They need a criminal story. They need a psychiatric story. They need a religious story. They need a reason to punish.

So they manufacture one.

They provoke anger, then call me angry. They create confusion, then call me confused. They isolate me, then call me isolated. They poison friendships, then say I cannot get along with people. They destroy dating, then say I have problems with women. They create false setups, then say I have criminal behavior. They create idea-of-reference traps, then say I am paranoid. They attack every creative outlet, then say my art is evidence. They humiliate me, then say I am unstable for objecting.

They create the disease, then sell themselves as the cure.

That is the fraud.

The Childhood Hypocrisy: Kissing a Black Girl Becomes “Behavior”

The hypocrisy goes all the way back to childhood.

In my account, something as ordinary as being around a Black girl or kissing at sunny skies day camp around 8 years old. a Black girl as a child could be treated inside the family system as if it meant something sick, wrong, criminal, shameful, or mentally ill. I was a child. I was not committing a crime. I was not doing something dangerous. I was not doing something that justified a lifelong label.

But in this family system, ordinary childhood behavior can be turned into pathology if it involves Kevin.

That is the point.

If another family member dates outside the religion, dates someone from another culture, has sex, marries outside expectations, or breaks the supposed rule, the system can tolerate it, excuse it, laugh it off, or treat it as normal adult life. But if Kevin does something far smaller, even as a child, it becomes a stain, a diagnosis, a family shame, or a reason to begin treating him as defective.

That is not a moral rule. That is selective hatred.

A rule applied only to one person is not a rule. It is discrimination. A family standard applied only to one child is not morality. It is scapegoating. A religious standard used only when it helps punish Kevin is not faith. It is a weapon.

That is why the phrase “it’s your behavior” is fraudulent. The behavior is not the real issue. The real issue is that Kevin is the chosen target, and anything Kevin does can be made wrong after the fact.

The Spanish Inquisition Logic: Confess to What We Invented

The coerced-confession structure is ancient. It resembles religious inquisitions, forced confessions, loyalty tests, and ideological purification. The accusation is vague. The punishment is constant. The authority refuses to state the real charge.

The target is told: “You know what you did.” “Go tell them everything.” “Do not fight it.” “Accept help.” “Clean up your ways.”

But confess to what?

That is the trick. The accusation is kept vague so the target starts searching himself. He wonders what they mean. He tries to explain. He tries to defend. He tries to reason. He tries to find the missing accusation. Then every word becomes material.

That is not truth. That is coerced confession.

It is the same moral structure as an inquisition: we already decided you are guilty, now confess to the guilt we invented. If you deny it, the denial proves guilt. If you object, the objection proves guilt. If you ask questions, the questions prove guilt. If you resist, the resistance proves guilt.

That is not justice. That is psychological torture.

The Outward Defamation: “Our Child Is Crazy”

Once the family creates the label, the next step is distribution. Tell the school. Tell the teacher. Tell the friend. Tell the neighbor. Tell the police. Tell the court. Tell the religious contact. Tell the community. Tell the public that Kevin is different, Kevin thinks differently, Kevin is unstable, Kevin needs help, Kevin has behavior issues, and Kevin needs to be watched.

That is how the private family label becomes a public prison.

The defamation does not need to be shouted. It can be whispered. It can be framed as concern. It can be dressed as protection. It can be passed quietly from person to person. But the effect is the same. The label arrives before I do. The warning arrives before I speak. The accusation arrives before anyone knows me.

That is how the world is poisoned.

Worldwide Dissemination: Nowhere Left to Go

One of the sickest parts of the entire system is the dissemination.

If a family labels a child privately, that is already damaging. If a school accepts the label, the damage spreads. If police accept the label, the danger increases. If courts accept the label, the label becomes official-looking. If religious actors accept the label, the label becomes moralized. But when that label is disseminated beyond the original family, beyond the original neighborhood, beyond the original courthouse, and into public life worldwide, the person is no longer dealing with a local problem.

He is dealing with a world that has been poisoned before he arrives.

That is the horror.

There is nowhere normal to go because the story gets there first. The label arrives before I speak. The suspicion arrives before I act. The warning arrives before anyone knows me. The false narrative becomes the introduction.

That is how a person is exiled while still alive.

The target can move cities, change routines, meet new people, enter new businesses, go to new gyms, try new coffee shops, art spaces, courthouses, lawyers, doctors, religious spaces, or public places, and somehow the same poisoned interpretation follows him. The words change. The faces change. The costumes change. But the label remains.

Kevin is unstable. Kevin is dangerous. Kevin thinks differently. Kevin does not know how the world works. Kevin needs help. Kevin is behavior.

That is not ordinary gossip. That is social contamination.

The person is not allowed a first impression anymore. He is not allowed neutrality. He is not allowed to be met as a human being. He is met as a file, a rumor, a warning, a diagnosis, a police narrative, a family story, a religious concern, or a pre-crime theory.

That is why dissemination is so destructive. It turns the entire world into a courtroom where the trial already happened in secret and the sentence is being carried out socially.

The accusation is everywhere, but the evidence is nowhere. The punishment is everywhere, but the charge is never clearly stated. The crowd is everywhere, but no one admits who gave the instruction.

That is the sickest part: the target is forced to live inside a reputation he did not create, defend against accusations he cannot see, and answer for stories that were spread behind his back.

This is not just defamation. It is life theft.

It steals movement. It steals social trust. It steals dating. It steals friendship. It steals work. It steals ordinary public life. It steals the right to walk into a room without already being condemned.

And because the dissemination is framed as concern, safety, rehabilitation, religious guidance, public protection, or “help,” the people repeating the lie can pretend they are doing something good.

That is how the abuse becomes global.

The family creates the label. The institutions legitimize the label. The community spreads the label. The public acts on the label. Then everyone says Kevin is reacting to nothing.

No. Kevin is reacting to a world that has been instructed to misread him.

Roadie Morales, Michael Patrick Huntley, and the Behavior Trap

The Roddy Morales and Michael Patrick Huntley situation is an example of how manufactured behavior works. In my account, Roddy Morales, Michael Patrick Huntley, LAPD-connected actors, and others were involved in trying to move me into situations that could later be used against me.

Taking me to strip clubs. Creating stories around women. Trying to make it look like I was stalking women. Trying to bring LAPD-confiscated marijuana into my house to frame me as a drug dealer. Trying to create the appearance of criminal behavior.

Then the system says, “Look what Kevin did.”

No. Look at who created the scene. Look at who introduced the people. Look at who supplied the danger. Look at who brought the drugs. Look at who built the setup. Look at who waited for the reaction.

This is the difference between behavior and entrapment. If the system creates the situation, scripts the roles, supplies the bait, and waits for the target to be blamed, then the target’s presence is not proof. The setup is proof.

“It’s Your Behavior”: The Whip Phrase

The phrase “it’s your behavior” is the whip. It sounds like accountability, but in this system it is obedience language. It means: we can provoke you, threaten you, isolate you, frame you, frighten you, humiliate you, and if you react, the reaction belongs to you.

That phrase does not appear in a vacuum. In 2001, Michael Patrick Huntley allegedly used language that exposed the larger structure. “World of paranoia.” “Have a good life now.” “You had better live a careful life.” Those were not normal friendship statements. In context, they sounded like warnings, threats, and announcements that a trap had been set.

The meaning was not subtle: from that point forward, anything I did could be interpreted through the label. If I went outside, it was behavior. If I stayed home, it was behavior. If I took a walk after dark, it was behavior. If I drove, dated, worked, created art, went to the gym, spoke up, got angry, avoided people, or tried to document what was happening, it was behavior.

That is how a person is turned into a permanent suspect. The system does not need real recklessness if it can manufacture the appearance of recklessness. It does not need real danger if it can manufacture the appearance of danger. It does not need real criminality if it can stage events, twist reactions, create false reports, and then point to the pile of manufactured incidents as proof.

That is the behavior trap.

They provoke, then say it is your behavior. They humiliate, then say it is your behavior. They isolate, then say it is your behavior. They manufacture a setup, then say, “Look what you did.” They create the false mental-illness frame, then say, “Accept help.” They create the false criminal frame, then say, “Clean yourself up.” They use police, then call it public safety. They use courts, then call it accountability. They use the Jewish community and rabbis, then call it spiritual guidance. They use mobs, then say, “See? Everyone has a problem with you.”

That is not correction. That is whipping. It is punishment until submission. It is dominance disguised as moral repair.

Manufacturing Reckless and Out-of-Control Behavior

The purpose of the phrase “it’s your behavior” is to make the target look like the source of the chaos. But in my account, the chaos is being manufactured around me.

This is the key difference. A person can be accused of acting reckless. But if the recklessness is being produced by threats, setups, provocation, stalking, false police involvement, planted narratives, and nonstop psychological battering, then the issue is not behavior. The issue is manufacturing.

The target is pushed into impossible situations, then judged for reacting to impossible situations. The target is surrounded by people acting strangely, aggressively, or indirectly, then blamed for noticing. The target is threatened, then blamed for fear. The target is harassed, then blamed for anger. The target is isolated, then blamed for isolation. The target is defamed, then blamed for trying to explain the defamation.

That is how false dangerousness is built.

A person takes a walk after dark, and suddenly it can be framed as suspicious. A person drives around, and suddenly it can be framed as reckless. A person talks to someone, and suddenly it can be framed as obsession. A person avoids someone, and suddenly it can be framed as paranoia. A person reacts to years of abuse, and suddenly the reaction is treated as the whole story.

This is how ordinary life becomes evidence. The action itself does not matter. The label decides what the action means.

That is the machine.

Setups, Frame Jobs, Arrests, and Control

Once the behavior label is in place, which starts at a very young age for me, police and courts can become part of the control system. In my account, this is where the private family-psychology label becomes public force.

The pattern is not simply that people disliked me. The pattern is that false or distorted narratives are allegedly pushed into police reports, arrests, charges, court proceedings, and probation-style control. The goal is not only to punish a particular act. The goal is to create a record that makes Kevin Perelman look reckless, unstable, dangerous, criminal, or out of control.

That is why forged, fraudulent, or manufactured arrests and charges matter so much. They are not side issues. They become the official-looking paperwork that supports the false label. Once a police report or charge exists, the system can point to it and say, “See, there is a history.” But the real question is whether the “history” was created by the same people and institutions trying to control me.

That is the frame-job structure: create the appearance, document the appearance, then use the documentation as proof.

The same applies to illegal trials or corrupted court proceedings. If the courtroom accepts the false label, then the court becomes another shock collar. It can impose conditions, restrictions, stay-away orders, probation terms, treatment requirements, mental-health narratives, and threats of jail or confinement. Then every ordinary act becomes a possible violation.

At that point, the person is not being rehabilitated. He is being owned.

Rehabilitation as Ownership

The word “rehabilitation” sounds positive. It sounds like improvement. It sounds like someone wants to make you healthier, safer, calmer, and more stable.

But in this system, rehabilitation means something else.

It means: become what we say you are allowed to be. Accept the label. Accept the false story. Accept the authority of the people who harmed you. Stop objecting. Stop exposing. Stop defending yourself. Stop naming the setup. Stop asking who created the danger. Stop asking why the same people who created the problem now claim to be the cure.

And if you don’t comply there will be retribution.

That is not rehabilitation. That is submission.

The message becomes: to become a “good person,” you must become a slave. You must be owned by us. You must accept that we control your reputation, your relationships, your movement, your speech, your anger, your fear, your sexuality, your creativity, your friendships, your public life, and your future. If you resist ownership, your resistance proves you still need rehabilitation until you are no more.

That is the moral fraud.

They manufacture the behavior, then demand rehabilitation for the behavior they manufactured. They create the false record, then demand that I accept the record as truth. They create the cage, then tell me the cage is for my own good.

This Is Not Past Tense

This is not past tense. This is not something that happened once in 1977 or 2001 and then ended. In my account, the same machine is still operating. The names, costumes, institutions, and public-facing excuses may change, but the structure remains the same: label Kevin, provoke Kevin, isolate Kevin, accuse Kevin, then call Kevin’s reaction the problem.

That is why “it’s your behavior” is such a dishonest phrase. It pretends there is a neutral standard being applied. But there is no neutral standard. The same behavior is treated one way when anyone else does it, and another way when I do it. That is not morality. That is targeting.

If someone else dates outside the Jewish religion, especially in our own family, dates someone from a different background, has sex, flirts, socializes, makes mistakes, gets angry, drives around, takes a walk, makes art, or acts imperfectly, it is treated as life. But when Kevin Perelman does something ordinary, it is turned into evidence. It becomes mental illness. It becomes danger. It becomes recklessness. It becomes a reason to punish, shame, isolate, or control.

That is the hypocrisy that exposes the hate.

This is not really about behavior. It is about the fact that they do not like me. They are ashamed of me. They want me erased. They want me gone, controlled, silenced, or made into a permanent example. So the word “behavior” becomes the excuse for rage.

The Bigger Picture: Worldwide Mental Battering

Even slavery is not usually described as a system where the whipping happens twenty-four hours a day until death. But that is what makes this situation so grotesque. The issue is not only domination. The issue is nonstop mental battering.

The pressure follows the target into public places, private life, friendships, family, work, courts, police encounters, colleges, High School, Elementry School, Middle School, religion, dating, art, speech, driving, walking, and ordinary daily movement. It is not one event. It is a world built around the label.

That is why the word “behavior” becomes so dishonest. A person cannot be battered from every direction and then judged as if he is responding to normal life. A person cannot be threatened, framed, isolated, mocked, defamed, and legally pressured for years, and then have every reaction treated as proof that he needed the pressure.

That is not behavior correction. That is psychological siege.

The goal is not to help. The goal is to make the person break, then call the breaking proof. The goal is to make the person desperate, then call desperation illness. The goal is to make the person angry, then call anger dangerous. The goal is to make the person isolated, then call isolation evidence that everyone was right about him.

That is the bigger picture. The machine is not trying to rehabilitate Kevin Perelman. It is trying to manufacture a person so damaged, so cornered, so defamed, and so exhausted that the original false label finally appears true.

Religious Hypocrisy, Child Molestation Rings, and Institutional Protection

This comparison has to be stated plainly: religious child molestation rings and institutional cover-ups are one of the clearest examples of how sacred authority can hide horrific abuse.

The point is not that every religious abuse system is the same. The point is that the public has already seen religious institutions, clergy, lawyers, courts, police, administrators, and community insiders protect abuse while the victim is silenced, discredited, shamed, or treated as the threat.

That is why the phrase matters: child molestation ring.

People need to understand the level of institutional horror being discussed. They need to understand that religious costumes, moral language, charity language, and “men of God” imagery do not automatically mean holiness, safety, honesty, or innocence. A person can appear devout, read scripture, follow rituals, speak about God, and still participate in a system of abuse, coercion, cover-up, and control.

That is the comparison.

Not the same act. The same level of institutional betrayal. The same abuse of sacred authority. The same use of religious trust to protect wrongdoing. The same pattern of insiders protecting insiders while the person harmed is treated as the problem.

In my account, this also begins with a child. The targeting begins around age five and becomes more severe around age five. That matters because this is not an adult dispute that began after some normal adult conflict. This is a child being labeled, interpreted, watched, and psychologically framed before he could possibly understand what was being built around him.

That is why this belongs in the same moral category of institutional child abuse. The alleged method is different, but the level of betrayal is comparable: adults, family members, religious actors, court-connected people, and institutional networks targeting a child, then protecting the system instead of protecting the child.

The Sex-Trafficking Analogy: Taking a Child Into a System of Ownership

Another analogy is child kidnapping into sex-trafficking rings.

Again, the point is not that every abuse system is the exact same crime. The point is the structure: adults target a child, remove the child from normal protection, isolate the child, control the child’s identity, rewrite the child’s reality, and then force the child into a system where other people profit from control.

That is why the analogy matters.

A trafficking system does not merely harm the child once. It converts the child into property. It cuts the child off from normal trust. It teaches the child that escape is impossible. It surrounds the child with handlers, threats, lies, shame, fear, and dependency. It makes the child’s life belong to the group.

In my account, the alleged system around me operates through a different method, but the ownership logic is similar. A child is labeled around age five. The pressure becomes more severe around age eight. The family, courts, police-connected actors, religious actors, neighborhood groups, and public networks allegedly begin treating the child not as a human being with rights, but as a controlled object inside their motive.

That is the similarity.

Not the same underlying offense. The same ownership structure. The same isolation. The same adult control over a child. The same removal from normal life. The same conversion of a person into property. The same demand that the target submit to the people harming him.

That is why the word “slave” is not accidental. The system is not merely criticizing behavior. It is allegedly trying to own the person’s movement, reputation, relationships, sexuality, friendships, speech, emotions, legal status, religious identity, and future.

That is trafficking logic applied psychologically, socially, legally, and religiously.

It says: you belong to us. You do not get normal relationships. You do not get normal freedom. You do not get normal credibility. You do not get normal childhood. You do not get normal adulthood. You do not get to define yourself. We define you. We move you. We label you. We punish you. We decide when you are “rehabilitated.” We decide whether you are safe. We decide whether you are good.

That is why this is on the level of the worst institutional abuse systems. It is not because the specific facts are identical. It is because the moral structure is the same: adults and institutions using power over a child, protecting each other, destroying the child’s normal life, and then calling the child’s reaction the problem.

The real analogy is not only sexual abuse. It is ownership.

It is the belief that a child can be taken from himself, renamed by adults, trapped inside a false identity, and used by a system that treats his suffering as useful.

That is the horror.

Targeting a Child Through Family, Court, and Religion

A child does not have the power to fight a family, a courthouse, police-connected actors, religious networks, neighborhood groups, and adults with psychological language. A child cannot defend himself from a label being quietly placed on him. A child cannot cross-examine a family rumor. A child cannot expose a court-connected network. A child cannot explain that the adults are manufacturing a story around him.

That is why the age matters.

If this begins around five years old and becomes severe around eight, then the issue is not “Kevin’s behavior.” The issue is adults targeting a child and then spending decades pretending the child’s reaction is the cause.

That is the same moral inversion seen in institutional abuse scandals. The institution protects itself. The insiders protect each other. The victim becomes inconvenient. The person trying to expose the abuse becomes the problem.

In my account, the Van Nuys courthouse and judicial system become part of that larger institutional betrayal. If family-linked people, court-connected people, police-connected actors, and religious actors are working from the same false label, then the child is not simply being abused privately. The child is being converted into an official story.

That is the danger.

The family creates the label. The court protects the label. The police enforce the label. The religious actors sanctify the label. The community repeats the label. Then everyone says, “It’s your behavior.”

Devout Appearance, Criminal Conduct

This is also why the religious issue has to be explained carefully. Many of the people involved may present themselves as devout Jewish people. They may read Torah, follow rituals, observe religious practices, speak in the language of God, morality, charity, rehabilitation, and community, and appear publicly as men of faith.

But religious appearance is not proof of righteousness.

If a person uses religion to justify defamation, coercion, psychological abuse, intimidation, false labeling, court manipulation, police pressure, public mobbing, or ongoing control, then that person is not acting as a man of God. He is acting as someone cloaked in religion while engaging in extreme wrongdoing.

That is the distinction.

This is not an attack on Judaism. This is an accusation against specific people who allegedly hide behind Judaism while doing things that no honest religious or moral system should defend. If they use Torah language, ritual practice, community respect, or religious authority as a shield for criminal behavior, then the problem is not faith. The problem is the weaponization of faith.

A person can wear religious clothing, quote religious texts, attend services, observe rituals, and still behave like a predator, handler, enforcer, or cult actor. The costume does not purify the conduct.

In my account, that is what makes this so dangerous. The public sees religious men, charity language, rehabilitation language, and community concern. But underneath that appearance is an alleged system of coercion, control, shame, intimidation, and ownership.

That is not God. That is a cloak.

Ritual Does Not Cancel the Crime

The fact that someone appears religious does not erase what they do. Ritual does not cancel coercion. Prayer does not cancel defamation. Torah study does not cancel psychological abuse. Community status does not cancel criminal behavior. A rabbi title does not cancel participation in a cage.

That is why I describe this as cult-like. Not because Judaism itself is a cult, but because these specific actors allegedly behave like a closed control group: protecting each other, excusing each other, punishing the outsider, demanding submission, calling abuse “help,” and treating resistance as proof that more control is needed.

That is not religion functioning as conscience. That is religion functioning as enforcement.

They are not correcting behavior. They are enforcing ownership. They are not helping me become a good person. They are demanding that I become a slave to their story.

Then Religion Enters as the Cleanup Crew

Only after the family psychology system, the behavioral-control logic, the defamation, the police pressure, the court pressure, the manufactured arrests, the manufactured charges, and the manufactured behavior does religion enter as the cleanup crew.

Now the message becomes: “You need rabbis.” “You need Jewish guidance.” “You need to clean up your ways.” “You need to become a good person.” “You need to stop fighting.” “You need to accept help.”

But this is not neutral religion. This is religion being plugged into an existing control system.

The Aleph Institute, Deborah Bayer, Defense Attorney, Shep Zeberman, Appellant Lawyer, Yisrael Gelb, Devout Jewish Lawyers, and rabbis, religious-community actors, and court-connected religious networks matter because they allegedly appear after the false label has already been created. They are not entering a clean situation. They are entering a poisoned situation.

If they accept the family label, they become part of the cage. If they pressure me to submit to a story that was manufactured, they become part of the cage. If they use religion to make obedience look holy, they become part of the cage. If they laugh, minimize, or say nothing is wrong, they become part of the cage.

That is how religion becomes a weapon. Not because religion is the origin, but because religion is used as the final costume of control.

The Aleph Institute and the Religious-Legal Enforcement Layer

The Aleph Institute matters because it represents the point where religious “help,” legal pressure, and institutional respectability can overlap.

The public language is help. The public language is support. The public language is reentry. The public language is spiritual guidance. But in my life, the allegation is that this type of religious-legal network becomes part of the control structure.

Deborah Bayer matters. Shep Zeberman matters. Yisrael Gelb matters. The Jewish Lawyers, and rabbis and religious-community actors matter. The court-connected people matter. They matter because, in my account, the issue is not real help. The issue is a religiously decorated custody system being placed on top of a false family-psychology label.

The message becomes: “We will make you look sick, criminal, unstable, immoral, reckless, dangerous, or out of control. Then we will offer ourselves as the people who can clean you up. If you do not accept our help, that proves you need more control.”

That is not help. That is a hostage system.

The Judicial and Religious Friendship Problem

The danger increases when religious actors are connected to people in the judicial system.

If someone like Shep Zeberman is connected with my family, judges, lawyers, court insiders, or people who can influence judicial outcomes, then the issue is not merely private religious pressure. It becomes a religious-legal enforcement network. The same concern applies to family members with judicial, legal, police, medical, psychological, or community connections.

This is how unheard-of conduct becomes possible. One person labels. Another repeats the label. Another gives it religious meaning. Another gives it police meaning. Another gives it legal meaning. Another turns it into “rehabilitation.” Another says the target is dangerous. Another says the target needs help. Another says the target must be controlled before something happens.

By the end, no one has to prove the original claim. Which has to be something like Paranoia, and Schizophrenia defamation of character. The label has traveled through enough respectable-looking people that the label begins to look real.

That is the ring structure.

Not necessarily a formal membership card. Not necessarily a signed conspiracy document. A ring can operate through loyalty, favors, shared narratives, mutual protection, religious authority, judicial friendships, police deference, and social pressure. Everyone protects the story because everyone benefits from the story, or because everyone fears what would be exposed if the story collapses.

That is why religious hypocrisy and judicial corruption belong in the same discussion.

When religious authority and legal authority protect each other, the target has nowhere normal to appeal. The person is trapped between “God says you need correction” and “the court says you need control.” That is not rehabilitation. That is a cage with a prayer book in one hand and a court order in the other.

Pre-Crime as a Cult Belief

The system also operates through pre-crime logic. It does not wait for facts. It works through prediction, profiling, fear, and empty labels. It says: we think you might become dangerous. We think you might be a danger to yourself or others. We think you might become the next serial killer. We think you might snap. We think you might do something someday. Therefore, we are justified in controlling you now.

That is not justice. That is pre-crime.

Pre-crime is almost a religion of its own. It asks people to believe in a future offense that has not happened. It asks people to punish a person for what the group imagines he might become. It turns suspicion into prophecy. It turns prophecy into surveillance. It turns surveillance into provocation. It turns provocation into reaction. Then it calls the reaction proof that the prophecy was right.

That is the same empty-label system used by neighborhood watch groups, police-connected actors, community groups, and psychological labeling networks. Lead officer Charles Sean Dinse, neighborhood watch-style actors, family-linked people, court-connected people, and public groups can all be pulled into the same theory: Kevin is dangerous, Kevin is unstable, Kevin needs to be watched, Kevin needs to be stopped before something happens.

But “before something happens” is where the abuse lives.

If I have not committed the act, they manufacture behavior. If there is no danger, they manufacture fear. If there is no crime, they manufacture police contact. If there is no violence, they manufacture a dangerousness narrative. If there is no mental illness, they manufacture distress through nonstop battering and then call the distress illness.

That is pre-crime as cult logic.

The accusation is not based on what happened. It is based on what the group has been trained to imagine or fabricate.

Priming the Crowd

The system works by priming people before I arrive.

A person, group, officer, neighbor, religious actor, court-connected insider, or family-connected person tells others that Kevin is unstable, dangerous, hateful, obsessive, reckless, mentally ill, or unpredictable. Once the label is planted, people interpret everything through it.

If I am quiet, I am suspicious. If I speak, I am aggressive. If I avoid people, I am paranoid. If I walk outside, I am lurking. If I take photos, I am dangerous. If I complain, I lack insight. If I document, I am obsessed. If I get angry after being provoked, I am out of control.

That is how priming works.

The crowd does not respond to Kevin. The crowd responds to the fabrications about Kevin.

This is why the comparison to religious cover-up systems matters. In those systems, victims are often not treated as people reporting harm. They are treated as threats to the institution. The institution’s reputation matters more than the victim’s reality. The same thing happens here when Kevin becomes the threat to the family story, the religious story, the police story, the court story, or the community story.

The target is not punished for what he did.

The target is punished because his existence threatens the lie.

The White-Group Empathy Layer

There is also another layer: outside groups can be recruited through empathy labeling. People can be told that Kevin is unstable, dangerous, hateful, reckless, mentally ill, abusive, or out of control. Once that story is planted, outsiders may believe they are helping, protecting women, protecting the community, protecting religion, protecting minorities, protecting public safety, or protecting the family.

That is how the mob expands.

Some people may not know the whole story. Some may think they are participating in concern. Some may think they are responding to a dangerous person. Some may think they are doing the right thing. But if the original label is false, then all of that “concern” becomes enforcement for a lie.

That is how hatred launders itself through empathy.

The family or religious network supplies the label. The crowd supplies the pressure. The police and courts supply the threat. The community supplies the isolation. Then everyone tells themselves they are helping.

But the result is the same: Kevin is battered, isolated, watched, provoked, and punished for a fabrications created before he even gets to speak.

Religious Slavery: The Final Ownership Model

The end goal is obedience. That is why the word slavery fits the structure.

A group claims control over my identity. A group claims control over my reputation. A group claims control over my social life. A group claims control over my ability to date, work, create, speak, relax, or be believed. A group poisons every public place and every relationship. Then the group says, “Submit to our help or we will lock you away.”

That is slavery logic. Not help. Not community. Not spirituality. Ownership.

A person is forced into isolation, then told the controlling group is his only path out. A person is defamed worldwide, then told he needs the same people who defamed him to clean him up. A person is beaten down psychologically, then told the beating proves he needs guidance.

That is grotesque. That is not care. That is a hostage system.

The Worldwide Isolation Prison

The purpose is not only to punish. The purpose is to isolate. To keep me from making one friend. To keep me from having one normal dialogue. To keep me from making money, To keep me from dating. To keep me from belonging anywhere. To keep me from joining normal public life. To keep me from trusting anyone. To keep me from being believed by anyone.

The well is poisoned before I arrive. People are told I think differently. People are told I am strange. People are told I am unstable. People are told I am dangerous. People are told I am hateful. People are told I need to be watched. People are told to provoke, test, mock, or report.

Then the same people say, “Why is Kevin alone?”

Because the system made him alone.

That is the prison. A prison made out of worldwide defamation. A prison made out of worldwide mobs. A prison made out of fake concern. A prison made out of “it’s your behavior.” A prison made out of religious and psychological language. A prison made out of people.

Why They Never Stop

They cannot stop because stopping exposes the beginning.

If they stop, the question becomes: Why did this start when Kevin was five? Who created the first label? Who told the schools? Who told the police? Who told the community? Who told the rabbis? Who told the courts? Who authorized the monitoring? Who protected the setup? Who benefited from the defamation? Who was covering for whom?

That is why the pressure continues. It is not about fixing me. It is about protecting them. They are not trying to solve a problem. They are trying to protect the lie that created the problem.

The Real Ending

The issue is not that Kevin Perelman refuses help. The issue is that the “help” is built from the same false label used to punish him. The issue is not that Kevin Perelman rejects religion. The issue is that religion is allegedly added as a weapon after psychology, police, courts, and public mobs have already built the cage.

The issue is not behavior. The issue is changing manufactured behavior. The issue is not mental illness. The issue is manufactured mental illness. The issue is not community concern. The issue is defamation, conditioning, humiliation, coerced false confession, and social isolation disguised as concern.

The real accusation is simple: they create the disease, sell themselves as the cure, build the cage, and call the cage help.

No family, doctor, psychologist, police officer, judge, rabbi, religious organization, or community mob has the right to do that to another human being.

No one.

The label travels faster than the person. That is how the cage becomes worldwide.

Table of Contents

“It’s Your Behavior”: Control, Stalking, Micromanagement, and the Manufacture of a Human Cage

“It’s your behavior.”.

The Original Lie: “It’s Your Behavior”

“See? There is something wrong with him.”

The Foundation: Illegal Monitoring, Psychological Labeling, and the First Spark

“Why does Kevin think people are watching him?”

“Who created the original label, who distributed it, who monitored him, who protected the monitoring, and why did this begin when he was five years old?”

What Drives This Kind of Control?

Authority Direction and Protection

Stalking Is Not Concern

The Shock Collar, the Button, and the Psychology of Breaking a Human Being

“Do not ask who is pushing the button. And accept your demise”

Action-Reaction: The Healthier I Get, the More the Shocks Increase

This Is Not Imaginary: Psychology Has a History of Conditioning Living Beings

Ivan Pavlov and Classical Conditioning

John B. Watson, Rosalie Rayner, and Little Albert

Edward Thorndike and the Law of Effect

B. F. Skinner, Operant Conditioning, and the Skinner Box

Martin Seligman, Steven Maier, and Learned Helplessness

Harry Harlow and Isolation

Wendell Johnson, Mary Tudor, and the Monster Study

MKULTRA and Behavioral Modification

The Abuse of Psychological Authority

The Dinner-Table Diagnosis

Black-and-White Judgment: Making Normal Life Impossible

“See? Something is wrong with him.”

It only needs to reinterpret every ordinary thing as wrong

Walking Away Becomes “Paranoia”

Unaddressable Provocation: Designed So It Cannot Be Reasoned With

“See? He is paranoid.”

“See? I told you so.”

The Therapist as Confession Booth

The Echo Chamber of Guilt

When One Label Fails, the System Changes Costumes

Manufactured Dangerousness

Special Schools, Special Classes, and Early Profiling

From Family Labeling to Institutional Machinery

The Website, the Paper Trail, and the Fear of Proof

Police, Private Security, and Public Removal Systems

How Would Everyone Know? The Mechanics of Spread

How Does It Become Every Public Place?

The Forest Fire of Defamation.

Forced Migration and the Planned Point of Awareness

Permission to Hurt

The Reverse Accusation

The Historical Pattern: Surveillance, Discrediting, and Psychiatric Control

Government-Style Operations and the Question of Motive

When Exposure Becomes the Real Threat

What kind of system does this to a child?

Engineered Self-Destruction as a Disappearance Method

Fear-Mongering the Crowd

Dissemination: Turning Every Fragment Into Public Shame

The Impossibility of Cure for a Fake Problem

The Moral Inversion

From Animal Experiments to Human Social Control

Why Start With a Five-Year-Old?

The Family Psychology Behind the Machine

The Purpose of Never Stopping

The Constitutional Question

The Question They Cannot Allow

The Real Definition

control through micromanagement, expanded into a privately manufactured psychiatric smear, then amplified into authority-directed social and institutional eradication

The Final Point

“It’s Your Behavior”: Control, Stalking, Micromanagement, and the Manufacture of a Human Cage

The phrase always sounds simple:

“It’s your behavior.”

That is the magic phrase. That is the cover phrase. That is the phrase used to make stalking sound like observation, provocation sound like concern, and psychological abuse sound like accountability.

But the phrase hides the real emotion underneath the system.

Fear.

Hatred.

Insecurity.

Shame.

Superiority.

The need to dominate.

When someone follows you around, collects private details, analyzes every blink, every reaction, every mistake, every social interaction, every date, every job, every public moment, and then twists all of it into something ugly, that is not concern.

That is not help.

That is not mental health.

That is control driven by hostility.

And when that control is aimed at removing a person from normal life, it becomes eradication.

Not necessarily eradication only in the physical sense.

There are many ways to make a person disappear.

You can destroy his reputation.

You can poison his relationships.

You can isolate him.

You can provoke him.

You can humiliate him.

You can make him afraid to speak.

You can make him afraid to date.

You can make him afraid to work.

You can make him afraid to exist in public.

You can make him look unstable after years of pressure.

You can try to push him toward jail, psychiatric confinement, social exile, self-destruction, or total credibility destruction.

Then you can call the entire process “concern.”

That is the trick.

That is the machine.

The Original Lie: “It’s Your Behavior”

The original issue is not behavior.

The original issue is interpretation.

A person can take anything and make it look like something else if they already decided the conclusion before the facts.

A child smiles wrong.

A child blinks wrong.

A child kisses someone on the playground.

A child gets scared.

A child gets angry.

A child does not understand adult games.

A child reacts to pressure.

Then adults say:

“See? There is something wrong with him.”

That is not diagnosis.

That is projection.

That is especially true when the child is five years old.

A five-year-old does not have a political agenda. A five-year-old does not have a criminal identity. A five-year-old does not have a developed personality that justifies lifelong punishment, surveillance, ridicule, and social destruction.

So when adults start in on a five-year-old with constant micromanagement, psychological interpretation, control, shame, and labels, the problem is not the five-year-old.

The problem is the adults.

The child has not even had time to become the accusation.

The accusation comes first.

The label comes first.

The interpretation comes first.

Then the adults spend years trying to collect enough fragments to make the label look true.

That is not concern.

That is a project.

The Foundation: Illegal Monitoring, Psychological Labeling, and the First Spark

The foundation of this entire pattern is not one argument, one misunderstanding, one bad friendship, one police report, one website, one car group, one coffee shop, one gym, one pool hall, one college, one teacher, or one public conflict.

The foundation is the original monitoring and labeling system.

In my account, this began when I was a child, around 1977, when I was five years old. It began inside a psychology-connected family and was then amplified through schools, police, community members, government-connected resources, and eventually the internet.

My mother, Anita Perelman, had a psychology background and worked as an art therapist at Cedars-Sinai. My father, Ron Perlman, is an orthopedic surgeon with a secondary psychology college background. My brother, Jason Perlman, also has medical training and psychology-related college background.

This matters because the original label did not come from nowhere. It came from a family that had enough psychological language to create a pseudo-clinical story, but not the ethical structure of a real clinical process.

This was not a neutral diagnosis.

This was not a proper psychiatric evaluation.

This was not an office-based treatment relationship.

This was not a child being helped.

This was a family-originated label that allegedly became the basis for illegal monitoring, interpretation, and social control.

The allegation is that illegal police monitoring and psychology-community monitoring were established at a very young age to watch, collect, interpret, and twist ordinary behavior. Whether this began at the police level, or involved higher government resources, intelligence-style resources, or NSA-level capabilities, I cannot state with certainty. But the scale, duration, repetition, and reach suggest resources far beyond ordinary family gossip.

That is the foundation.

A child is labeled.

The child is watched.

The child is interpreted.

Teachers are brought in.

Schools are brought in.

Friends are brought in.

Police-connected people are brought in.

Psychology-connected people are brought in.

Government-connected resources are brought in.

Then every ordinary behavior becomes material.

That is how the first spark becomes a forest fire.

Once a child is labeled as “special,” “unstable,” “crazy,” “dangerous,” or “unknown,” that label can travel. It can be softened for public use. It can be disguised as concern. It can be repeated as a warning. It can be handed from one adult to another, one school to another, one social group to another, one police contact to another.

The wording may sound innocent:

“Kevin is special.”

“Kevin needs to be watched.”

“Kevin has problems.”

“Kevin may react.”

“Kevin needs help.”

“Pay attention to his behavior.”

“Do these things and see how he responds.”

But underneath the soft language is the operating system:

Monitor him.

Test him.

Provoke him.

Collect on him.

Interpret him.

Make the label come true.

That is why this is so dangerous.

A rumor can fade.

A family conflict can end.

A bad friendship can be walked away from.

But an authority-backed label can grow beyond the people who first created it. It can become institutional. It can become automatic. It can become a script that people repeat without knowing where it began.

That is how the forest fire spreads.

Anita Perlman and Ron Perelman creates the psychological narrative.

Jason Perlman helps spread or operationalize it.

Michael Patrick Huntley later appears as part of the social trap.

Paul Humphrey, who worked for LAPD in 1998, appears as part of the police-connected social environment emerging with Mike Huntley in 1986.

Rhody Morales appears in the alleged 2001 setup environment.

Tom Farley appears as an early childhood social actor.

Ms. Vaughn appears as an example of a school actor.

Jen Hess appears as an example of a later internet-era setup context.

Teachers, school officials, professors, police-connected actors, psychology-connected people, judicial actors, community members, and public groups all become part of the expanding relay.

The names matter because this is not an abstract theory.

This is a timeline.

This is a chain.

This is the alleged path from family labeling to institutional machinery.

By the time the pattern reaches adulthood, the original child has been surrounded by decades of interpretation. Every new person is told there is “history.” Every new place receives the warning. Every new interaction is filtered through the label.

Then, when the target finally begins to understand and speak, the system calls his speech the problem.

That is why they do not want me having an opinion about this to any human being on planet Earth.

Because if the foundation is examined, the story changes.

The question is no longer:

“Why does Kevin think people are watching him?”

The question becomes:

“Who created the original label, who distributed it, who monitored him, who protected the monitoring, and why did this begin when he was five years old?”

That is the question that damages the cover story.

It damages the family story.

It damages the police story.

It damages the psychology story.

It damages the judicial story.

It damages the government story.

Because if a psychology-connected family can use police, school, judicial, and government-connected resources to label, monitor, and psychologically attack a child, then this is no longer a private family issue.

It is a civil-rights issue.

It is a constitutional issue.

It is a government-abuse issue.

It is a warning to every parent, every child, every citizen, and every person who believes the United States is supposed to protect people from exactly this kind of unchecked power.

This is why the foundation matters.

The later mobs did not create the story.

The internet did not create the story.

The website did not create the story.

My police reports did not create the story.

The public conflicts did not create the story.

The foundation came first.

The label came first.

The monitoring came first.

The script came first.

The later events are the branches of the same tree.

And the tree was planted when I was a child.

What Drives This Kind of Control?

Control is the method.

But control is not the deepest motive.

Control is usually driven by something underneath it: fear, hatred, insecurity, shame, envy, superiority, and the need to dominate what the controller cannot understand or tolerate.

Normal people can dislike someone and walk away.

Normal people can be afraid and still respect the law.

Normal people can disagree and still leave another human being alone.

Normal people do not spend decades stalking, provoking, humiliating, labeling, isolating, and trying to force another person into a cage while calling it “help.”

That kind of conduct comes from something darker.

It comes from the kind of personality that believes its fear is more important than another person’s rights.

It comes from the kind of person who believes their discomfort gives them permission to destroy someone else’s life.

It comes from people who confuse authority with morality.

It comes from people who believe that because they have education, money, status, medical language, psychology language, police contacts, judicial connections, government influence, or social power, they have the right to define another person as defective, dangerous, or disposable.

That is not concern.

That is hatred wearing a professional mask.

And the most dangerous kind of hatred is the kind that does not recognize itself as hatred.

It says:

“We are worried.”

“We are helping.”

“He has a problem.”

“It is his behavior.”

“He needs treatment.”

“He needs supervision.”

“He needs to be controlled.”

But underneath those words is the real message:

“We are afraid of him.”

“We are ashamed of him.”

“We do not want him free.”

“We do not want him believed.”

“We do not want him to have a normal life.”

“We want him removed.”

That is why the emotional core has to be named.

The people capable of doing this are not simply “controlling.” They are morally dangerous. They may look respectable. They may have degrees. They may go to temple. They may speak the language of compassion. They may call themselves parents, doctors, helpers, teachers, police officers, professionals, or concerned citizens.

But conduct reveals character.

If a person uses psychological language to inflict pain, that person is not acting as a healer.

If a person uses fear to justify cruelty, that person is not acting as a protector.

If a person uses social power to isolate someone, that person is not acting out of love.

If a person manufactures false labels to remove someone from society, that person is not correcting behavior.

That person is participating in dehumanization.

That is the word.

Dehumanization is what allows people to do unspeakable things while telling themselves they are good.

It is how someone stops seeing a child as a child and starts seeing him as a problem.

It is how someone stops seeing a human being as a human being and starts seeing him as a case, a threat, a diagnosis, a burden, a stain, a liability, or a thing to be managed.

Once that happens, cruelty becomes easy.

The person is no longer treated as someone with a soul, rights, privacy, dignity, and the right to live freely.

The person becomes an object.

A project.

A suspect.

A specimen.

A dog with a shock collar.

A child in a human Skinner box.

That is why “control” is not enough.

This is control powered by fear and hatred.

This is domination powered by insecurity.

This is psychological violence disguised as concern.

This is the personality structure behind the machine: people who cannot tolerate another person’s freedom, so they create a moral excuse to destroy it.

Authority Direction and Protection

In my allegation, this is not random private citizens acting alone, and it is not merely authority figures looking the other way.

They are doing both.

They have directed it, and they continue protecting it.

Police, psychology-connected people, teachers, school officials, government employees, judicial actors, and institutional figures have allegedly supplied the label, the tactics, the permission, and the immunity.

The message is simple:

“This is Kevin Perlman.”

“This is how you interpret him.”

“These are the tactics.”

“Do these things to him.”

“If he reacts, use the reaction.”

“If he complains, call it paranoia.”

“If he documents, call it obsession.”

“If he asks why, call it mental illness.”

“Nothing will happen to you.”

That is the missing authority layer.

The crowd does the daily shocking.

The authority figures provide the script and the shield.

That is why the behavior keeps spreading. Random people do not invent the same psychological tactics for decades by accident. They are given the frame, the target, the themes, and the permission.

Then, once the tactics spread, the same institutions continue protecting the participants by ignoring reports, refusing evidence, twisting complaints, and turning the focus back onto Kevin Perlman’s reaction.

That is how the machine works:

Direct the tactic.

Protect the actor.

Collect the reaction.

Call the reaction proof.

Repeat.

This is not over.

This is not an old family story.

This is past and present conduct: a continuing system of labeling, provocation, psychological shocks, public humiliation, and institutional protection.

That is not concern.

That is authority-directed social eradication.

Stalking Is Not Concern

Concern has a shape.

Concern asks questions.

Concern protects dignity.

Concern preserves rights.

Concern wants the person to live better.

Concern does not destroy the person’s name.

Concern does not poison every relationship.

Concern does not use strangers to provoke reactions.

Concern does not collect private details and twist them into fictional stories.

Stalking has a different shape.

Stalking watches.

Stalking follows.

Stalking collects.

Stalking interprets.

Stalking waits for mistakes.

Stalking creates pressure.

Stalking turns reactions into evidence.

So when someone says, “We are only concerned,” but their conduct is stalking, provocation, defamation, isolation, and threats, then the words do not matter.

The conduct defines the motive.

And the conduct is not concern.

The Shock Collar, the Button, and the Psychology of Breaking a Human Being

There is one family example that explains the entire system.

When I was younger, my father had a Rhodesian Ridgeback dog named Rhoda. He did not want the dog going into the kitchen when the family was eating. Instead of ordinary communication, patience, humane training, or basic boundary-setting, he used a shock collar. Eventually, that progressed into a perimeter shock collar with a remote button.

That matters because it reveals a philosophy of control.

When the subject does not behave the way the controller wants, the controller inflicts pain.

The point is not communication.

The point is compliance.

The message is not, “Let me teach you.”

The message is, “I will hurt you until you stop.”

But the deeper question is this:

What happens when the button never stops?

What happens when the dog leaves the kitchen, and the shock still comes?

What happens when the child behaves, and the shock still comes?

What happens when the adult goes to school, goes to work, goes to the gym, takes a walk, dates someone, avoids conflict, makes art, builds websites, tries to be friendly, tries to be healthy, tries to walk away, tries to live a normal life — and the shock still comes?

Then it is no longer correction.

It is torture.

That is the human shock collar.

A person is not wearing a device around his neck. The device is social. The device is psychological. The device is public. The device is made of people, repetition, humiliation, provocation, and psychological terror tactics.

A stranger repeats private information.

Shock.

A friend reports back to the family.

Shock.

A teacher watches differently.

Shock.

A date becomes a false story.

Shock.

A public place becomes a stage.

Shock.

A police officer makes a threat.

Shock.

Someone hints at a family lie.

Shock.

Someone laughs while pretending nothing is happening.

Shock.

Someone says, “It’s your behavior.”

Shock.

And once the system becomes public, the shocks are no longer isolated. They become environmental. They become repetitive. They become person-to-person, place-to-place, day-to-day pressure.

In public places, person after person mimics the same behavior directed at me based on collected aspects of my private life.

Shock.

Random strangers walk past me whistling from place to place.

Shock.

Employees are told to mimic my sayings, jokes, phrases, or social-network references.

Shock.

People are allegedly told that if they see me and are near me, they should start tapping their feet, tapping counters, or repeating small physical gestures.

Shock.

Groups of neighbors come outside in matching colors, or in colors matching the clothing I am wearing.

Shock.

Cars are parked in patterns: two or more white cars together, pairs of cars, cars backed into parking spaces, or other repeated visual arrangements directed at me.

Shock.

When I buy something with a credit card, employees at locations worldwide are allegedly told to tap the card twice on the counter before handing it back.

Shock.

Previous private conversations are hinted at by strangers, one person after another.

Shock.

Repetition tactics appear person to person: people repeatedly calling me “man,” “boss,” or “bro,” or incorporating trigger words into sentences in unnatural numbers from day to day.

Shock.

People repeat things in twos or threes near me, rotating through large groups. At a car event, coffee shop, or public location, this can happen fifteen times in an hour, from stranger to stranger.

Shock.

Websites I surf or topics I privately read are hinted about the next day through idea-of-reference-style messages.

Shock.

People befriend me and bring up Illuminati, aliens, conspiracy theories, or other loaded subjects to try to make me look unstable, paranoid, or crazy.

Shock.

Women call me a stalker when they do not get what they want, or when a situation is being staged to create the appearance that I am unsafe around women.

Shock.

Positive things that could lead to friends, relationships, human connection, or public participation are accused of being “attention seeking,” so I am not allowed to ask out women, have friends, or participate normally in social environments.

Shock.

Any personal expression, emotion, originality, passion, humor, warmth, or creativity is labeled crazy, weird, obsessive, or suspicious.

Shock.

Anything done more than once is labeled obsession.

Shock.

Trying to have a normal friendly conversation with another person, with no motive other than human connection or shared interest, becomes something to punish, twist, or analyze.

Shock.

Trying to sit down and relax in public — at restaurants, coffee shops, parks, in my car, or almost anywhere with people — becomes another opportunity for harassment: whistling, verbal abuse, “man,” “boss,” “bro,” fragmented conversation collection, obsessive looping, mockery, guilt tactics, and private-life references passed from place to place.

Shock.

Any time I leave my house to get fresh air, focus on my health, or simply do something normal, the system creates pressure.

Shock.

Statements about loitering, trespass, vagrancy, or homelessness are used at places where people normally relax or return more than once, such as Starbucks — even when I arrive in a $90,000 Jaguar XKR.

Shock.

If I buy a car, any car, even a cheap twenty-year-old used Mitsubishi Eclipse, the narrative becomes that Kevin is a car thief, Kevin should not buy cars, or Kevin needs tickets, arrests, or registration accusations.

Shock.

Almost anything involving “more than one” becomes suspicious: owning more than one car, asking more than one woman out after the first was not interested, doing more than one photo shoot, going to more than one public location, trying a different coffee shop after being harassed at the first one, or returning to the same restaurant more than once.

Shock.

Smoking cigars becomes another setup. I am asked how many cigars I smoke. Then people play victim about their lungs. Then I am harassed anywhere I smoke a cigar, even in cigar lounges or places where cigars are sold.

Shock.

If I go to a gym on a normal routine, it is called obsession. If I stop going for a couple of weeks, it is framed as guilt, paranoia, or evidence that something happened.

Shock.

Someone may approach me and ask about my life. When I begin to answer, they walk away whistling, hinting cryptically that I am a “whistleblower” or that I said too much. Then the provocations increase for an hour, a month, or even years, as punishment for speaking.

Shock.

Threats follow: “You had better accept what’s going on, or it will get a lot worse.”

Shock.

After Roddy Morales took me to strip clubs with Michael Patrick Huntley and LAPD-connected actors, and after I refused the alleged attempt to bring LAPD-confiscated marijuana into my house to frame me as a drug dealer, I told Roddy I did not want him in my life because he was involved in things that could endanger or destroy my life. The response became more threats, more escalation, and more warnings that if I went to clubs, things would get a thousand times worse.

Shock.

If I play pool, the story becomes that I play too much pool, that I am not wanted at that pool hall, or any pool hall, while waitresses or women are used to create stalking accusations, harassment, or reaction traps.

Shock.

If I get into photography, the story becomes that I am not allowed to take pictures of people.

Shock.

At the University of Colorado in 1996, during a college photography class, Jason Perlman’s friend Mike Wexler allegedly pushed a “road trip” scenario while warning, “You’re not allowed to take pictures of people,” creating threat-like pressure and group retaliation around my interest in photography.

Shock.

When I got into studio photography around 2005, Aubrey Fisher, Roddy Morales, LAPD-connected actors, and a West Valley officer calling himself Officer Toro allegedly created a new wave of threats, including statements such as, “If you ever get into photography, I will exercise the law in my own way.”

Shock.

Artwork and photography then became another trap. Any piece of art, image, theme, emotion, symbolism, or creative expression could be reframed as confession, mental illness, schizophrenia, danger, or guilt.

Shock.

As an artist, this is especially important. My mother, Anita Perlman, worked as an art therapist at Cedars-Sinai. In my account, that made art one of the earliest and most dangerous areas of projection. Instead of seeing art as expression, imagination, symbolism, or creativity, the system treats it as evidence.

Shock.

Any artwork becomes a confession.

Shock.

Any symbol becomes guilt.

Shock.

Any emotional expression becomes instability.

Shock.

Any originality becomes obsession.

Shock.

Any image becomes pathology.

Shock.

Any creative life becomes another way to punish me.

Shock.

Any aspect of normal human emotion — dating, flirting, jokes, warmth, kindness, affection, curiosity, or even childhood moments like kissing a Black girl when I was young — becomes material for accusation, anger, cry-wolf tactics, and increased mobbing.

Shock.

Any friendly, warm, joking personality toward business employees or people in public places is met with cryptic terror tactics designed to stop bonding at every level.

Shock.

Even professional friendliness is punished. I am expected to stand or sit like a soldier, say only “yes,” “no,” or “I’ll have this,” and remove all warmth, humor, personality, and connection from public life.

Shock.

That is how total isolation is manufactured.

Shock.

If I speak, I am weird.

Shock.

If I am friendly, I am harassing.

Shock.

If I am warm, I am suspicious.

Shock.

If I joke, I am unstable.

Shock.

If I express emotion, I am dangerous.

Shock.

Any verbal dialogue becomes angular and manipulative. Conversations are not allowed to be honest or direct. They become attempts to get something from me, make me agree to something, make me look crazy, trigger a reaction, create a false confession, or steal money.

Shock.

Projection games follow: “You can’t see yourself, so we are showing you who you are.” “Go to a therapist and tell them everything.” “If you do not give the coerced false confession we want, we will never stop.” But if I do give them anything, it becomes the excuse to punish me in a double bind.

Shock.

If I say these things are being done to my life, the response becomes: “You’re lying.” “You want attention.” “We do not believe you.”

Shock.

Then the same behavior is repeated harder.

Shock.

Any attempt to ask what is going on, why they are doing it, why they will not stop, or who is directing it is met with more punishment — especially from the psychology community, police, neighborhood-watch groups, security companies, lawyers, judicial employees, clerks, and public actors.

Shock.

Every few minutes, push the button.

If the person reacts, call the reaction proof.

If the person does not react, push harder.

If the person walks away, follow.

If the person asks why, punish the question.

That is the most important part.

A normal human being who is being shocked will eventually ask why.

Why are you doing this?

Why will you not stop?

What did I do?

What is this about?

Why are strangers involved?

Why is every healthy behavior attacked?

Why am I being followed?

Why am I being provoked?

Why do strangers know of me and lash out in anger and rage wherever I go?

Why is my life being treated like evidence?

Why is my existence being punished by people who claim to like me, and by angry anonymous strangers from every circle?

Those are normal questions.

Those are human questions.

But in this system, the question itself becomes the crime.

The person is not only punished for behavior.

The person is punished for noticing.

The person is punished for asking.

The person is punished for wanting the pain, provocations, harassment, and isolation to stop.

That reveals the real rule.

The rule is not:

“Fix your behavior.”

The real rule is:

“Do not ask who is pushing the button.”

That is why the phrase “it’s your behavior” is so dishonest.

The behavior is not being observed in freedom.

The behavior is being shaped under duress.

The family presses the button, creates distress, erases the button, and calls the distress proof.

The system creates pressure, captures the reaction, removes the context, and calls the reaction mental illness.

Ask why the pressure exists, and the pressure gets worse.

Ask why the shocks will not stop, and they shock harder.

Ask why people are doing this, and they call the question paranoia.

Ask why strangers are repeating the same themes, and they call the noticing schizophrenia.

Ask why healthy behavior is being attacked, and they call the resistance obsession.

That is not psychology.

That is psychological domination.

It is not treatment.

It is not concern.

It is the remote button being pushed over and over again — except now the collar is made out of people.

“Do not ask who is pushing the button. And accept your demise”

That is why the phrase “it’s your behavior” is so dishonest. The behavior is not being observed in freedom. The behavior is being shaped under duress.

The family presses the button, creates distress, erases the button, and calls the distress proof.

The system creates pressure, captures the reaction, removes the context, and calls the reaction mental illness.

Ask why the pressure exists, and the pressure gets worse.

Ask why the shocks will not stop, and they shock harder.

Ask why people are doing this, and they call the question paranoia.

Ask why strangers are repeating the same themes, and they call the noticing schizophrenia.

Ask why healthy behavior is being attacked, and they call the resistance obsession.

That is not psychology.

That is psychological domination.

Action-Reaction: The Healthier I Get, the More the Shocks Increase

Another major part of the pattern is action-reaction.

The shocks do not increase when I am doing something harmful.

They increase when I am doing something healthy.

The more productive I become, the more the shocks increase.

The more I try to accomplish, the more the shocks increase.

The more I go outside, the more the shocks increase.

The more I go to the gym, the more the shocks increase.

The more I take walks, the more the shocks increase.

The more I work, create, build, document, socialize, or improve my life, the more the shocks increase.

That exposes the motive.

If the purpose were health, healthy behavior would be supported.

If the purpose were stability, stable behavior would be supported.

If the purpose were treatment, improvement would reduce the pressure.

But the opposite happens.

Improvement is punished.

Health is punished.

Productivity is punished.

Confidence is punished.

Documentation is punished.

Medication improvement is punished.

If medication helps someone function better, and the system responds by increasing provocation, then the system is not trying to help the person stabilize. It is trying to destroy the stabilization.

That is the action-reaction proof.

The system reacts against progress because progress disproves the label.

The healthier the target becomes, the more the target threatens the story.

So the system shocks harder.

This is not correction.

This is anti-health.

This is not treatment.

This is deterioration pressure.

This is a campaign to weaken the person’s strength, weaken his confidence, weaken his peace, weaken his social life, weaken his mental state, and weaken his ability to continue existing outside the label.

That is why the Stasi concept of Zersetzung matters as a historical parallel. Zersetzung was not only about physical force. It was about decomposition: breaking down a person’s life, relationships, confidence, reputation, and ability to function.

That is the logic here.

Do not let him get healthier.

Do not let him get stronger.

Do not let him get clearer.

Do not let him get proof.

Do not let him recover.

Do not let him live normally.

Shock the progress.

Punish the health.

Attack the strength.

Then call the damage proof that the original label was true.

This Is Not Imaginary: Psychology Has a History of Conditioning Living Beings

The public often hears words like “psychology,” “therapy,” “treatment,” or “behavior modification” and assumes the goal is always benevolent.

But the history of psychology is much more complicated.

Psychology has an entire history built around conditioning, punishment, reward, fear, deprivation, isolation, and behavior modification. These ideas were studied on animals. They were studied on children. They were studied in controlled environments. Some experiments became famous. Some became infamous. Some are now remembered as examples of what happens when human beings or animals are treated as subjects to be shaped instead of lives to be protected.

That is why this matters.

When I describe a human being being psychologically “shocked” through repeated provocation, humiliation, fear, social punishment, false accusation, and public pressure, I am not inventing the concept of behavior being shaped through pain.

That concept already exists.

Ivan Pavlov and Classical Conditioning

Ivan Pavlov’s work with dogs helped establish classical conditioning.

Pavlov showed that dogs could learn to associate a neutral stimulus, such as a bell or tone, with food. Eventually, the sound itself could produce salivation.

The important point is association.

A neutral thing becomes emotionally or physically meaningful because it is repeatedly paired with another stimulus.

That matters because a person can be conditioned to react to places, phrases, looks, sounds, people, symbols, movie references, private details, or social situations if those things are repeatedly paired with fear, humiliation, threat, or punishment.

The kitchen is no longer just a kitchen.

A public place is no longer just a public place.

A stranger’s phrase is no longer just a phrase.

A movie reference is no longer just a movie reference.

If the same types of signals are repeatedly paired with punishment, the body starts learning danger.

That is conditioning.

John B. Watson, Rosalie Rayner, and Little Albert

In 1920, John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner conducted the famous Little Albert experiment.

They took a young child and paired a white rat with a loud, frightening noise. Over time, the child showed fear toward the rat even without the noise, and the fear reportedly generalized to other similar objects.

This is one of the most disturbing examples because it involved a child.

The experiment showed that fear could be conditioned.

That is the key point.

A child can be made afraid of something that was not originally frightening if adults repeatedly pair it with fear.

So when people pretend psychological conditioning is fantasy, history says otherwise. Psychology itself demonstrated that fear can be manufactured.

That is why the Little Albert experiment matters here.

It shows that adults in the field of psychology were willing to create fear in a child and then study the result.

That is not a wild accusation about human nature.

That is history.

Edward Thorndike and the Law of Effect

Edward Thorndike’s puzzle-box experiments with animals helped develop the Law of Effect.

The basic idea was that behaviors followed by satisfying consequences are more likely to be repeated, while behaviors followed by unpleasant consequences are less likely to be repeated.

That became one of the foundations for later behaviorism.

In plain English:

Reward something, and it may increase.

Punish something, and it may decrease.

This is the logic behind training.

But it is also the logic behind abuse.

If someone punishes a person for asking questions, the goal may be to stop the questions.

If someone punishes a person for speaking, the goal may be silence.

If someone punishes a person for dating, working, walking, creating, socializing, or trying to be healthy, the goal may be to make normal life feel unsafe.

That is not treatment.

That is coercion.

B. F. Skinner, Operant Conditioning, and the Skinner Box

B. F. Skinner developed operant conditioning into one of the major systems of behavioral psychology.

Operant conditioning focuses on how behavior is shaped by consequences.

Skinner’s operant chamber, commonly called the Skinner box, was a controlled experimental environment used to study animal behavior. An animal could press a lever and receive food. Behavior could be increased or decreased depending on what consequence followed.

The key terms matter.

Positive reinforcement means adding something desirable to increase behavior.

Negative reinforcement means removing something unpleasant to increase behavior.

Positive punishment means adding something unpleasant to decrease behavior.

Negative punishment means removing something desirable to decrease behavior.

This is important because the public often misunderstands the word “negative.” Negative reinforcement does not mean punishment. It means removing something unpleasant so a behavior increases.

But punishment is different. Punishment is about reducing behavior through unpleasant consequences or loss.

The larger point is that behavior can be shaped by controlling consequences.

That is where the abuse potential becomes obvious.

If a person’s entire social environment is turned into a punishment chamber, then ordinary life becomes the box.

The person goes to the gym.

Punishment.

The person takes a walk.

Punishment.

The person makes a friend.

Punishment.

The person dates.

Punishment.

The person asks why.

Punishment.

The person tries to expose the pattern.

More punishment.

That is the human Skinner box.

Not because there is a literal laboratory cage, but because the environment is being manipulated to produce, suppress, or punish behavior.

In this model, the person is not being treated.

The person is being conditioned.

And the most important conditioning is this:

Do not ask why.

Do not expose the family.

Do not challenge the label.

Do not talk about the shocks.

Do not tell people who is pushing the button.

Martin Seligman, Steven Maier, and Learned Helplessness

Martin Seligman and Steven Maier’s learned helplessness research involved animals exposed to uncontrollable aversive events, including shocks.

The central idea was that when a subject experiences that nothing it does changes the outcome, it may stop trying to escape.

That is why “the button never stops” matters.

If the shock stops when the person changes behavior, then the system is at least pretending to correct behavior.

But if the shock continues no matter what the person does, then the lesson becomes:

Nothing you do matters.

You cannot escape.

You cannot explain.

You cannot win.

You cannot make it stop.

That is not correction.

That is psychological destruction.

This is why the question “Why won’t you stop?” becomes so important.

The subject keeps asking because asking is human.

Please stop.

Why are you doing this?

What do you want?

What did I do?

But the system punishes the question.

That creates a deeper helplessness.

The person is not only trapped by the shocks.

The person is trapped by the rule that he is not allowed to identify the shocks.

Harry Harlow and Isolation

Harry Harlow’s monkey experiments are another disturbing part of psychology’s history.

Harlow’s work with infant rhesus monkeys showed the importance of comfort and attachment, but some of his experiments involved deprivation and isolation that caused severe emotional harm.

That matters because isolation is not neutral.

Being cut off from normal human connection is not harmless.

If a person is followed, smeared, publicly provoked, blocked from ordinary friendships, blocked from dating, blocked from trust, blocked from peace, and blocked from belonging, the harm is not imaginary.

Isolation itself becomes part of the punishment.

A human being is not built to live under permanent social exile.

So when a system poisons relationships, turns friends into collectors, turns dates into traps, and turns public life into provocation, that is not “concern.”

That is social deprivation.

It is the use of isolation as a weapon.

Wendell Johnson, Mary Tudor, and the Monster Study

The Monster Study, conducted in 1939 by Mary Tudor under Wendell Johnson’s supervision, involved children and speech-related labeling.

Some children were reportedly given negative feedback about their speech. The study is now widely discussed as ethically disturbing because vulnerable children were exposed to harmful labeling and criticism.

The important point is labeling.

A child can be harmed by being told something is wrong with him.

A child can be shaped by repeated negative interpretation.

A child can internalize or suffer under an adult’s label.

So when a family uses psychological-sounding labels against a child outside any legitimate clinical setting, that is not harmless.

Labels can injure.

Labels can become cages.

Labels can create the very distress later used as “evidence.”

A child does not have to be clinically ill for adults to damage him with a label.

The label itself can become the weapon.

MKULTRA and Behavioral Modification

This is not only about university psychology.

The United States Senate held hearings on Project MKULTRA, described as the CIA’s program of research in behavioral modification.

That phrase matters:

Behavioral modification.

The government itself investigated programs involving covert research into influencing, modifying, or controlling human behavior.

That does not prove every individual case.

But it proves the category exists.

Behavioral control was not science fiction.

It was studied, funded, hidden, and later exposed.

That is why people should be careful before dismissing claims about behavioral control, psychological pressure, or institutional misuse of mental-health language as impossible.

The historical record already shows that governments and institutions have studied ways to influence, manipulate, modify, and control human beings.

The question is not whether the idea exists.

The question is how those ideas are used, who uses them, and whether they are being used ethically or abusively.

The Abuse of Psychological Authority

Psychological knowledge can help people.

It can also be abused.

It can be used to understand trauma.

It can also be used to create trauma.

It can be used to reduce fear.

It can also be used to manufacture fear.

It can be used to support children.

It can also be used to label children.

It can be used to treat suffering.

It can also be used to create suffering and then call the suffering proof.

That is the point.

A person with psychological language is not automatically safe.

A person with a psychology degree is not automatically ethical.

A family member with psychological vocabulary is not a neutral clinician.

A dinner table is not a treatment room.

A rumor is not a diagnosis.

A private citizen collecting reactions is not a therapist.

A teacher repeating a family label is not a doctor.

A date fabricating a story is not a clinical witness.

A police officer acting on poisoned information is not a psychiatrist.

A person using psychological labels to control, punish, shame, isolate, or remove someone is not practicing care.

They are weaponizing psychology.

The Dinner-Table Diagnosis

One of the most important facts is that there was never a legitimate clinical foundation for these labels.

This was not a proper psychiatric evaluation. This was not a neutral clinical setting. This was not an ethical treatment relationship. This was not a licensed psychiatrist conducting a proper diagnosis with consent, records, standards, and accountability.

This was family labeling.

This was dinner-table psychoanalysis.

This was family members with psychology-related backgrounds using the aura of psychology without the ethics of psychology.

A mother with an art-therapy and psychology background.

A father who was an orthopedic surgeon with secondary psychology background.

A brother with medical training and secondary psychology background.

That is not the same thing as legitimate psychiatric diagnosis.

A family dinner table is not a clinic.

A family rumor is not a medical record.

A parent’s interpretation is not a diagnosis.

A brother’s lie is not evidence.

A friend reporting back to the family is not treatment.

A teacher repeating a family label is not clinical proof.

This is the difference between medicine and manipulation.

They were not diagnosing a condition.

They were manufacturing a reputation.

Black-and-White Judgment: Making Normal Life Impossible

Another major part of the system is black-and-white thinking.

There is no middle ground.

There is no context.

There is no ambiguity.

There is no ordinary human imperfection.

There is no “that was awkward.”

There is no “that was normal.”

There is no “that happens to everyone.”

There is no “that is part of being human.”

Every detail becomes an issue.

Every interaction becomes evidence.

Every social ambiguity becomes misconduct.

Every normal human complication becomes pathology.

That is how the phrase “it’s your behavior” becomes impossible to survive.

The standard is not applied normally. It is applied selectively.

If other people have complicated friendships, romantic confusion, awkward social boundaries, triangle relationships, mixed signals, emotional uncertainty, or imperfect judgment, it is treated as normal life.

People date.

People misunderstand each other.

People blur lines.

People have crushes.

People move on.

People stay friends.

People end up in awkward social situations.

People are imperfect.

That is life.

But when the same ordinary human complexity is attached to Kevin Perlman, it is twisted into something monstrous.

Now it is reckless.

Now it is unstable.

Now it is dangerous.

Now it is obsessive.

Now it is proof of bad character.

Now it is “your behavior.”

That is not morality.

That is discrimination.

The issue is not the behavior itself, because the same behavior is accepted in others.

The issue is who the behavior is attached to.

That exposes the fraud.

If the rule applies only to one person, then it is not a rule.

It is a weapon.

This is how the system creates an impossible life. The target is not judged by ordinary human standards. The target is judged by a zero-defect standard that no human being on earth could survive.

No mistakes.

No awkwardness.

No mixed signals.

No frustration.

No anger.

No confusion.

No dating complications.

No friendship complications.

No imperfect words.

No emotional reactions.

No human moments.

Everything becomes proof.

This is not accountability.

This is a rigged moral courtroom where the verdict was written before the evidence existed.

The purpose is not to evaluate behavior fairly.

The purpose is to make normal life impossible.

Because if every human interaction can be twisted into misconduct, then the target eventually stops interacting.

He stops dating.

He stops trusting.

He stops making friends.

He stops speaking freely.

He stops trying to be normal.

Then the system points at the isolation it created and says:

“See? Something is wrong with him.”

That is the trick.

Create impossible standards.

Punish normal behavior.

Destroy confidence.

Force isolation.

Then call the isolation proof.

This is why black-and-white thinking matters.

It is not just a personality flaw.

It is a control tactic.

It removes context. It removes mercy. It removes proportion. It removes the basic understanding that human beings are imperfect.

And once context is removed, anything can be made to look evil.

A friendship becomes obsession.

A date becomes abuse.

A disagreement becomes danger.

A question becomes paranoia.

A mistake becomes a diagnosis.

A normal social complication becomes a permanent character defect.

That is how a life is made unlivable.

The system does not need the target to do something truly wrong.

It only needs to reinterpret every ordinary thing as wrong.

Walking Away Becomes “Paranoia”

Another major tactic is the weaponization of distance.

If I walk away from a situation, it is called paranoia.

If I lose interest, it is called fear.

If I avoid harassment, it is called instability.

If I stop going somewhere because the environment is hostile, it is called avoidance.

If I decide I do not want to deal with provocation, it is called mental illness.

If I remove myself from people acting strangely, aggressively, or abusively, it is called delusion.

That is the trap.

The healthiest response to harassment is distance.

The safest response to provocation is walking away.

The most peaceful response to a hostile environment is leaving.

But in this system, even walking away is turned into evidence.

If I stay, they provoke.

If I react, they call it dangerousness.

If I leave, they call it paranoia.

If I avoid the situation later, they call it phobia, fear, instability, or agoraphobia.

So there is no acceptable behavior.

That proves the accusation is not sincere.

A sincere concern would recognize that walking away from conflict is healthy.

A fair person would understand that losing interest is normal.

A rational person would understand that nobody is required to stay in a hostile environment.

But this system treats disengagement as pathology because it needs every behavior to support the label.

Staying becomes evidence.

Leaving becomes evidence.

Speaking becomes evidence.

Silence becomes evidence.

Anger becomes evidence.

Calm becomes evidence.

Socializing becomes evidence.

Isolation becomes evidence.

That is not diagnosis.

That is a closed loop.

The conclusion is already written, and every action is forced to serve it.

This is how normal self-protection is weaponized.

The target is not allowed to have boundaries.

The target is not allowed to lose interest.

The target is not allowed to avoid hostile people.

The target is not allowed to say, “I do not want to be here.”

The target is not allowed to protect his peace.

Because the moment he does, the system says:

Unaddressable Provocation: Designed So It Cannot Be Reasoned With

Normally, people avoid situations that are too strange, too hostile, too irrational, or too impossible to address.

A normal person does not spend his life trying to reason with people who are deliberately provoking him.

A normal person walks away from people who are acting in bad faith.

A normal person focuses on problems that can actually be discussed, corrected, or resolved.

But in my life, the system forces the opposite.

I am repeatedly placed in situations where people use indirect aggression, psychological hints, staged behavior, mockery, stalking, and provocation in ways that are designed to be almost impossible to address.

If I say nothing, the provocation continues.

If I respond, the response is collected.

If I ask what is going on, the question is framed as paranoia.

If I try to explain the pattern, the explanation is framed as mental illness.

If I walk away, the walking away is framed as avoidance, fear, or instability.

If I defend myself, the defense is framed as aggression.

That is the trap.

Each situation is designed so it cannot be handled normally.

The provocation is indirect enough to deny.

The aggression is public enough to humiliate.

The pattern is repetitive enough to damage.

The setup is strange enough that explaining it sounds strange.

Then the target is forced into an impossible position:

Ignore it and absorb the damage.

Address it and look unstable.

Leave and be called paranoid.

Stay and be pushed toward reaction.

This is how the system manufactures the appearance of “different thinking.”

It creates situations no normal person could calmly explain, then uses the difficulty of explaining them as evidence that the target is strange, unstable, paranoid, or mentally ill.

That is not an accident.

That is the design.

The goal is not communication.

The goal is escalation.

The goal is to provoke confusion, frustration, anger, fear, exhaustion, or defensive speech, then isolate that reaction from the context that produced it.

The people using these tactics are not trying to resolve anything.

They are trying to create a record.

They are trying to make the target look unreasonable.

They are trying to make normal self-defense look like abnormal behavior.

They are trying to make a person who is being attacked appear to be the attacker.

And if the situation escalates toward violence, the system gets what it wanted: a stronger removal argument.

That is why these provocations are so dangerous.

They are designed to be unresolvable.

They are designed to force the target into a no-win exchange.

They are designed to make calm reasoning impossible.

They are designed to create the appearance that Kevin Perlman thinks differently, reacts strangely, or cannot function normally.

But the real abnormality is not the target’s reaction.

The real abnormality is the engineered situation.

When people create impossible interactions and then blame the target for struggling inside them, they are not observing mental illness.

They are manufacturing evidence.

They are creating the pressure, blocking normal resolution, provoking escalation, and then calling the result “behavior.”

That is not concern.

That is a setup.

“See? He is paranoid.”

But walking away from abuse is not paranoia.

Leaving a toxic situation is not mental illness.

Avoiding people who provoke you is not instability.

Refusing to stay in a rigged environment is not proof of fear.

It is self-preservation.

And the fact that self-preservation is labeled as illness reveals the motive.

The system does not want the target healthy.

It wants him trapped.

It wants him forced to remain inside the pressure chamber until he produces the reaction they need.

That is why walking away must be pathologized.

Because if the target can walk away, the system loses control.

“You Know What You Did”: The Forced-Confession Trap

There is one exchange that exposes the method.

Around 2015, my father, Ron Perlman, said:

“You know what you did.”

My response was simple:

“What did I do?”

He could not answer the question.

Instead, he said, in substance:

“People are not told what they did because they can lie.”

That answer is not evidence.

That answer is a trap.

If someone has a real accusation, they can state it.

If someone has a real fact, they can identify it.

If someone has a real concern, they can explain it.

But “you know what you did” is not an accusation. It is an empty box. The target is expected to fill the box himself.

That is why the phrase is so dangerous.

It is designed to create guilt without facts.

It is designed to make the person search his own memory for something that can be twisted.

It is designed to make the person defend against shadows.

It is designed to make the person talk, explain, guess, confess, deny, or emotionally react.

Then whatever the person says can be collected and contorted into the preexisting narrative:

“See? I told you so.”

This is not truth-seeking.

This is forced-confession psychology.

The accusation is kept vague because vagueness gives the accuser power. If the target is never told what the alleged conduct is, the target can never fully answer it. The accusation floats over every year, every relationship, every childhood moment, every mistake, every normal human imperfection.

The target is left asking:

What did I do?

What are they talking about?

Why is this happening?

Why won’t anyone say the actual accusation?

That confusion is not accidental.

The confusion is the mechanism.

If the target can be kept confused long enough, he may begin to believe he must have done something. He may begin to accept blame for events he did not create. He may begin to internalize guilt for the abuse being done to him.

That is the purpose.

Make the target believe he deserves the punishment.

Make the target believe he caused the stalking.

Make the target believe he caused the labels.

Make the target believe he caused the community hatred.

Make the target believe he caused the police attention.

Make the target believe he caused the cage being built around him.

That is brainwashing.

It is also evidence production.

The accuser does not need a fact if he can pressure the target into producing words, emotions, or reactions that can be twisted into facts.

This is why “you know what you did” fits perfectly with the shock-collar model.

Push the button.

Create distress.

Ask for confession.

Punish the question.

Collect the reaction.

Call the reaction proof.

The goal is not to discover truth.

The goal is to manufacture admission.

And if no admission exists, manufacture confusion until the target sounds guilty for asking what the accusation is.

That is why this tactic is so cruel.

It tries to make a person participate in his own destruction.

It tries to make the target accept the false story so he stops fighting the people creating it.

The Therapist as Confession Booth

The same tactic appeared in another form around 2001.

My mother, Anita Perlman, angrily pressured me to go to a therapist or psychiatrist and “tell them everything.”

On the surface, that can be made to sound like concern.

But in context, it was not concern.

It was another forced-confession trap.

The point was not to identify a real clinical problem. The point was to push me into a setting where I would be pressured to search my own life for guilt, confusion, memories, fragments, fears, mistakes, or ordinary human imperfections that could be collected and twisted into the family’s preexisting narrative.

It was not:

“Let us help you.”

It was:

“Go confess.”

But confess what?

That was never clearly stated.

That is the trap.

If a person is told to “tell them everything” without being given a factual accusation, the person is placed inside a psychological fog. He starts searching himself. He starts wondering what they mean. He starts trying to explain details that may have nothing to do with anything.

Then any small detail can be weaponized.

A memory becomes obsession.

A question becomes paranoia.

A fear becomes pathology.

A disagreement becomes lack of insight.

A defense becomes denial.

A normal human imperfection becomes a symptom.

That is why the therapist-confession tactic is so dangerous.

It uses the appearance of mental-health care to create a collection environment.

The therapist is not approached as a helper.

The therapist is turned into a confession booth.

The person is pushed to talk, not so he can heal, but so his words can be mined.

That is not treatment.

That is psychological evidence harvesting.

And it fits the same pattern:

Create a vague accusation.

Refuse to state the facts.

Pressure the target to explain himself.

Collect whatever he says.

Twist the fragments.

Call the fragments proof.

Then use the proof to justify the label that existed before the conversation ever began.

That is not clinical care.

That is reputation manufacturing through coerced self-disclosure.

A legitimate therapist helps a person understand reality. This tactic tries to make the person doubt reality.

A legitimate therapist protects confidentiality and context. This tactic turns disclosure into ammunition.

A legitimate therapist does not begin with a family’s hidden verdict. This tactic begins with the verdict and searches for material to support it.

That is why “go tell them everything” was not neutral.

It was part of the same machinery as “you know what you did.”

Both phrases create guilt without evidence.

Both phrases pressure the target to produce material.

Both phrases avoid stating a clear factual accusation.

Both phrases try to make the target participate in his own framing.

And both phrases serve the same deeper purpose:

To justify the motive that began long before any actual conduct could explain it.

The Echo Chamber of Guilt

Another major tactic is the echo chamber of guilt.

The accusation is never clear.

The evidence is never stated.

The factual charge keeps changing.

But the emotional message is constant:

“You know what you did.”

“Go tell them everything.”

“Do not fight it.”

“Admit you have a problem.”

“Accept that this is your fault.”

That is not truth.

That is guilt induction.

It is an attempt to make the target internalize blame for a punishment that was created by other people.

The system does not need a real confession if it can create a psychological confession. It does not need a real crime if it can make the target feel like he must have done something. It does not need evidence if it can keep repeating guilt until the target begins questioning himself.

That is why vague accusations are so powerful.

If someone says, “You did X on this date,” the accusation can be answered.

But if someone says, “You know what you did,” the accusation becomes infinite.

It can mean anything.

It can attach itself to any memory, any mistake, any childhood moment, any awkward interaction, any relationship, any fear, any private thought, any normal human imperfection.

The target is pushed into searching his own life for the missing accusation.

That is the trap.

The target starts asking:

Was it this?

Was it that?

Is this why they hate me?

Is this why they follow me?

Is this why strangers repeat things?

Is this why the police are involved?

Is this why my family will not stop?

Then the system uses the search itself as evidence.

“See? He is obsessive.”

“See? He is paranoid.”

“See? He has guilt.”

“See? He knows.”

That is not investigation.

That is psychological framing.

The accusation is left vague so the target’s confusion can be harvested.

The confusion is not accidental.

The confusion is the mechanism.

“Do Not Fight It”: Manufacturing Submission

Around 2001, my mother, Anita Perlman, said something to the effect of:

“Do not fight it.”

That phrase matters.

Because in context, it did not sound like help.

It sounded like surrender.

Do not fight what?

Do not fight the label.

Do not fight the shocks.

Do not fight the humiliation.

Do not fight the people provoking you.

Do not fight the family narrative.

Do not fight the police pressure.

Do not fight the migration into a cage.

Do not fight the disappearance being prepared for you.

That is the meaning of the phrase in context.

It is not concern.

It is submission training.

The system wants the target to stop struggling. It wants the target to accept the false story. It wants the target to stop asking why. It wants the target to stop documenting. It wants the target to stop resisting the psychological cage being built around him.

Because if the target accepts guilt, the system has less work to do.

If the target believes he deserves the punishment, he stops exposing the punishment.

If the target believes he is defective, he stops challenging the people who labeled him.

If the target believes the cage is his fault, he stops identifying the people building it.

That is why coerced self-blame is so important.

The easiest person to remove is the person who has been convinced he deserves removal.

That is the goal.

Not truth.

Not healing.

Not accountability.

Submission.

The system wants the person to walk himself into the cage and call it insight.

When One Label Fails, the System Changes Costumes

Another major part of this pattern is label-switching.

The original cover story is mental illness:

“He is crazy.”

“He is paranoid.”

“He is unstable.”

“He needs help.”

“It is his behavior.”

But when that does not work, the accusation changes shape.

Suddenly the person is not only “crazy.”

Now he is dangerous.

Now he is a stalker.

Now he is reckless.

Now he hates women.

Now he hates Black people.

Now he is violent.

Now he has guilt.

Now he has a “history.”

Now he needs court supervision.

Now he needs diversion.

Now he needs forced mental-health control.

That is not a new concern.

That is the same machine changing costumes.

The purpose is not to identify the truth. The purpose is to find whatever label will work.

If “mentally ill” does not work, use “criminal.”

If “criminal” does not work, use “dangerous.”

If “dangerous” does not work, use “stalker.”

If “stalker” does not work, use “abusive.”

If “abusive” does not work, use “racist.”

If one story collapses, invent another.

This exposes motive.

A person who wants truth does not keep changing accusations until something sticks.

A person who wants help does not fabricate criminal scenarios.

A person who wants safety does not create danger.

A person who wants distance simply stays away.

But this system does not stay away.

It follows, watches, provokes, collects, interprets, escalates, and recruits.

That is not concern.

That is obsession.

And when the obsession is aimed at removing a person from normal life, the proper word is not help.

The proper word is eradication.

Manufactured Dangerousness

The label “crazy” is not always enough.

To truly remove someone from society, the story usually has to become darker.

The person must be made to look dangerous.

That is where the false stories come in.

Stories about violence.

Stories about knives.

Stories about guilt.

Stories about women.

Stories about race.

Stories about paranoia.

Stories about anger.

Stories about instability.

Stories about a “past” that was created backward to justify a future cage.

This is manufactured dangerousness.

The goal is not to respond to actual danger.

The goal is to manufacture the appearance of danger so that punishment looks like protection.

If a person is peaceful, the story must make him look violent.

If a person is warm, the story must make him look hateful.

If a person is social, the story must make him look inappropriate.

If a person is passive, the story must provoke him until he reacts.

Then the reaction becomes the evidence.

This is how the machine works.

It creates the pressure, captures the reaction, removes the context, and calls the result proof.

Special Schools, Special Classes, and Early Profiling

The early school placements matter.

Special schools, special classes, small controlled groups, and unusual observation environments are not automatically abusive. Many children receive specialized education for legitimate reasons.

But in this context, the question is different:

Was the child being helped, or was the child being profiled?

If a child is placed into a special environment after already being labeled by family members with psychology-related backgrounds, then the school environment can become part of the label.

The child is watched differently.

The child is interpreted differently.

The child is compared differently.

The child is recorded differently.

The child is not simply educated.

The child is processed.

That is why early placements such as special programs, small classes, or psychologically charged school environments matter. A class of fifteen students can be a learning environment. It can also become an observation chamber if the adults are using it to sort, categorize, or confirm preexisting labels.

The question is not whether schools can help children.

Of course they can.

The question is whether a child was placed into educational settings under a poisoned premise.

If the family label came first, then every teacher, counselor, staff member, friend, and classmate who later interacted with the child may have been interacting with the label before interacting with the child.

That is how a child becomes a case before he becomes a person.

That is how education becomes surveillance.

That is how ordinary development becomes evidence.

From Family Labeling to Institutional Machinery

A family does not need to own the government to use government resources.

A family only needs to create a label that institutions accept.

Once a label is accepted, schools, teachers, psychologists, police, courts, community members, friends, and strangers can begin acting on it.

That is how a private family smear becomes a public operating system.

The family says:

“He is unstable.”

The school hears it.

The teacher watches differently.

The friend is warned.

The date is influenced.

The police are told there is “history.”

The court hears there is “history.”

The public hears rumors.

Then every layer points to the previous layer and says:

“See? There must be something there.”

But the “something” may simply be the original lie traveling from person to person.

That is how a false label becomes a cage.

Police Were Waiting for the Reaction

Another part of the pattern is that the police side of the system appears to have been waiting for a specific kind of entrance.

The expectation seemed to be that I would eventually walk into a police station emotionally destroyed, confused, angry, terrified, and speaking in a way that could be written off as psychiatric instability.

In other words, the system appeared to be waiting for the result it had spent years trying to manufacture.

But that is not what happened.

I hired private investigators.

I collected photographs.

I collected video.

I tried to walk in with evidence.

That changes the story.

Because if the target walks in with proof instead of incoherent panic, the people expecting a “crazy” performance have a problem.

The target is no longer simply reacting.

The target is documenting.

The target is no longer giving them the collapse they were waiting for.

The target is showing the machinery.

That is when the psychological tactics become more aggressive.

The pressure increases.

The ridicule increases.

The “he is imagining it” language increases.

The gaslighting increases.

The system must deny what the target is documenting because the target’s evidence threatens the entire psychiatric script.

This is the same pattern repeated again:

Create pressure.

Expect collapse.

When collapse does not happen, attack credibility.

When evidence appears, call the evidence obsession.

When documentation appears, call the documentation paranoia.

When the target asks why, call the question mental illness.

The system does not want evidence.

The system wants a reaction.

The Website, the Paper Trail, and the Fear of Proof

Around 2010, when I began creating a public record through a website, the pressure and arrests became worse.

That timing matters.

Before a paper trail exists, the system can operate through rumor, hints, private pressure, social humiliation, and vague accusations.

But once the target writes things down, the system has a problem.

Now there is a counter-narrative.

Now there is a record.

Now there is a way to compare dates, names, threats, arrests, public incidents, police conduct, family statements, and repeated patterns.

Now the target is no longer only reacting.

He is documenting.

That changes everything.

A system built on fog fears documentation.

A system built on rumor fears records.

A system built on humiliation fears exposure.

A system built on psychiatric labeling fears coherent explanation.

So the system escalates.

The message becomes:

Do not take pictures.

Do not document.

Do not create proof.

Do not speak publicly.

Do not name names.

Do not build a record.

Do not show the pattern.

The target is then accused of being a bad person for saying bad things about people.

But that reverses the problem.

If people are participating in a system of provocation, humiliation, false labeling, retaliation, and attempted removal, then documenting that conduct is not the original harm.

The conduct is the harm.

The documentation is the response.

That is why calling the target “bad” for documenting the pattern is another inversion.

It is the same old trick:

Create the abuse.

Punish the record of the abuse.

Then call the record proof that the target is unstable.

Police, Private Security, and Public Removal Systems

People often assume that police power and private civilian pressure are separate worlds.

They are not always separate.

Modern cities have many examples of public-private removal systems: business districts, private security guards, police partnerships, homeless sweeps, exclusion programs, nuisance enforcement, and informal pressure campaigns against people considered undesirable in public space.

Business Improvement Districts are one example. Critics and civil-rights groups have documented how some districts use private security or “ambassador” programs alongside police to remove people seen as bad for business, especially unhoused people, poor people, or people labeled as disorderly.

This matters because it proves a public-private method exists.

Private actors can identify a person as a problem.

Private security can monitor or pressure that person.

Police can be called in when the target reacts or refuses to move.

Courts can then inherit the record.

The public then hears:

“He has a history.”

But the “history” may have been manufactured by the same removal system.

This is not limited to homelessness. The structure can apply anywhere a person is pre-labeled as undesirable, unstable, dangerous, suspicious, disruptive, or unwanted.

The method is:

Label the target.

Watch the target.

Pressure the target.

Wait for reaction.

Call police.

Create record.

Use record as proof.

Repeat.

That is why private security and police collaboration matters. It shows how non-police actors can help create the conditions for police involvement while pretending they are merely reporting behavior.

The target experiences a trap.

The system calls it public safety.

The Circus of Probable Cause

A real accusation has a shape.

It has facts.

It has dates.

It has witnesses.

It has a specific act.

It has a legal theory.

It has probable cause.

It can be investigated.

It can be challenged.

But this system operates differently.

The accusation is vague.

The accusation shifts.

The accusation is hinted.

The accusation is staged.

The accusation is whispered through other people.

The accusation appears as guilt, not fact.

“You know what you did.”

“Tell them everything.”

“Do not fight it.”

“You have a problem too.”

That is not probable cause.

That is psychological fog.

If there were a real crime, there would be an investigation.

If there were a real victim, there would be a clear allegation.

If there were a real danger, there would be specific facts.

If there were a real legal basis, it would not require a planet of strangers repeating hints and provocations.

That is why the worldwide-shame mechanism exposes itself.

The goal is not to investigate a crime.

The goal is to make the target feel as if he must deserve punishment.

The goal is not justice.

The goal is mental surrender.

The goal is to make the person accept the idea that he deserves execution, confinement, institutionalization, exile, or public destruction, even when no factual accusation is ever plainly stated.

That is why it becomes a circus.

The system does not have a charge.

It has a script.

And the script is designed to make the target act guilty while never being told what he supposedly did.

How Would Everyone Know? The Mechanics of Spread

One of the intimidation questions is always:

“How would everyone know you?”

That question is designed to make the target sound impossible before the mechanism is even examined.

But the answer is not magic.

It is notification.

It is word of mouth.

It is institutional labeling.

It is people informing other people.

It is authority figures giving the frame.

It is the internet being used as an amplifier.

It is privacy invasion being used to collect fragments.

It is those fragments being twisted out of context.

Before the internet, the alleged system spread through people.

A teacher tells another teacher.

A school tells another school.

A family member tells a friend.

A friend tells a group.

A police-connected person tells a community member.

A community member tells a business.

A business tells regulars.

A stranger is warned before Kevin arrives.

The wording may sound polite:

“Kevin is special.”

“Kevin needs to be watched.”

“Kevin has problems.”

“Kevin is unstable.”

“Kevin needs help.”

“Kevin may react strangely.”

“Do these things and watch how he responds.”

That is how a label travels without ever being tested.

It does not require every person to know the whole story.

It only requires each person to repeat the warning.

Then the next person treats the warning as fact.

That is how the label arrives before the person.

That is how a child, teenager, college student, employee, artist, programmer, or ordinary person walks into a room and is already interpreted before he speaks.

After the internet became available, the spread allegedly changed scale.

By the early and mid-1990s, the internet created a new opportunity for the same labeling system to move faster, wider, and more quietly. A private rumor could become an online warning. A social label could become a searchable identity. A local smear could be exported into chat rooms, message boards, IRC, email, forums, and later social media.

In my account, this is why the early internet period matters.

Around 1994, my brother Jason Perlman strongly wanted me to see the internet. In hindsight, I believe that period became a new stage of the same operation: the point where the old word-of-mouth label could be digitized, amplified, and distributed.

The old phrase may have been:

“Kevin is a special child.”

The internet version became:

“Kevin is unstable.”

“Kevin is dangerous.”

“Kevin is crazy.”

“Watch him.”

“Set him up.”

“Get him to react.”

“Make him look like he has ideas of reference.”

“Make him look like he is stalking women.”

“Make him look like he is doing something wrong.”

That is not organic social life.

That is informational warfare.

The internet allowed the smear to travel faster than Kevin could correct it.

It allowed people who had never met me to be given a script before interacting with me.

It allowed online women, chat users, strangers, and social groups to allegedly play roles, create bait, frame ordinary communication, and turn normal interaction into evidence.

That is how harmless conduct becomes suspicious.

A friend asks for help.

A person checks an email for someone who asked.

Then the context is stripped away.

Suddenly the story becomes:

“Kevin is hacking into her email.”

A woman flirts, baits, or creates a confusing interaction.

Then the context is stripped away.

Suddenly the story becomes:

“Kevin is stalking women.”

A person is asked to look at something online.

Then the context is stripped away.

Suddenly the story becomes:

“Kevin is doing something wrong.”

That is the tactic.

Create the setup.

Remove the context.

Distribute the accusation.

Use the accusation as proof.

This is why privacy violations matter.

If someone is watching a person’s computer use, communications, browsing, messages, friendships, and ordinary online behavior, then every harmless act can be harvested and reframed.

The crime is not the harmless act.

The crime is the surveillance, the setup, the privacy invasion, the framing, and the out-of-context dissemination.

But in this system, the real crime is ignored because the target has already been labeled.

If this happened to anyone else, people would recognize the problem immediately.

They would ask:

Who was watching his computer?

Who invaded his privacy?

Who put spyware or monitoring tools on his devices?

Who collected the information?

Who distributed it?

Who removed the context?

Who used it to create a false narrative?

But when the name is Kevin Perlman, the same common sense disappears.

The privacy violation becomes invisible.

The setup becomes invisible.

The framing becomes invisible.

The only thing people are told to see is the label.

That is how the situation is reversed.

The people committing the privacy violations act like investigators.

The people spreading disinformation act like witnesses.

The people creating bait act like victims.

The people twisting context act like protectors.

And the person being watched, framed, and smeared becomes the suspect.

That is the machinery.

It is not magic.

It is a pipeline.

First, create the childhood label.

Then spread it through schools, friends, family, and community.

Then use authority figures to give the label credibility.

Then use the internet to amplify it.

Then use privacy violations to collect fragments.

Then use staged interactions to create false context.

Then use the false context to reinforce the original label.

Then tell the public:

“See? We were right about him.”

That is why the “how would everyone know?” question is dishonest.

They know because someone tells them.

They know because the label is distributed.

They know because the script is passed along.

They know because authority gives permission.

They know because the internet became a weapon.

They know because the same lie has been moved from person to person, place to place, and platform to platform.

The question is not:

“How could everyone know?”

The real question is:

“Who is notifying them, what are they being told, and why has no one been held accountable for spreading it?”

That is the question the system does not want answered.

Because once the mechanics of spread are understood, the accusation of impossibility collapses.

The pattern does not require magic.

It requires a label, a network, a script, authority permission, and repetition.

And once those exist, the lie can travel farther than the truth.

How Does It Become Every Public Place?

This is one of the biggest questions.

Why would this appear in coffee shops?

Why restaurants?

Why bars?

Why gyms?

Why pool halls?

Why auto shops?

Why car groups?

Why public venues?

Why friendships?

Why women?

Why men?

Why almost every place a person tries to enter just to live a normal life?

The question is not only why.

The question is how.

A normal family cannot do that by itself.

A normal rumor cannot do that by itself.

A normal disagreement cannot follow someone from place to place, city to city, decade to decade, and public setting to public setting.

For that kind of pattern to exist, something larger has to be happening.

A label has to travel.

A warning has to travel.

A story has to travel.

A script has to travel.

The person must be entering spaces where others have already been told how to see him before he has even said a word.

That is the real power of reputation destruction.

If the label arrives first, the person never gets to arrive as himself.

He arrives as the rumor.

He arrives as the warning.

He arrives as the accusation.

He arrives as the prewritten story.

Then every person who interacts with him is not interacting with a human being. They are interacting with the label they were given.

That is how normal life becomes impossible.

The target is not allowed to meet people naturally.

He is introduced by accusation before he opens his mouth.

He is interpreted before he acts.

He is judged before he speaks.

He is provoked before he understands the room.

That is not social life.

That is a moving courtroom.

The Forest Fire of Defamation

A false label can spread like a forest fire.

At first, it may begin as a family accusation.

Then it reaches teachers.

Then friends.

Then schools.

Then police.

Then community members.

Then workplaces.

Then public venues.

Then strangers.

After the internet, the spread becomes even easier. A reputation can be poisoned faster, wider, and with less accountability. A label can be repeated by people who never witnessed anything. A person can be framed by whispers, posts, private messages, warnings, hints, and “concerns” that are never tested against facts.

That is how a human being becomes a public myth.

The label becomes bigger than the person.

People no longer need evidence.

They have heard enough.

They have been warned enough.

They have been given permission enough.

And once people believe they have permission, many will participate.

Some will think they are helping.

Some will think they are protecting others.

Some will think the target deserves it.

Some will enjoy the power.

Some will enjoy the cruelty.

Some will hide behind the crowd.

Some will say, “Everyone knows.”

But “everyone knows” is not evidence.

Sometimes “everyone knows” only means the lie has been repeated long enough.

Forced Migration and the Planned Point of Awareness

Another tactic is forced migration.

The target enters a normal place — a car group, a coffee shop, a gym, a restaurant, a public venue — and the environment becomes hostile.

So he leaves.

He goes somewhere else.

Then the same pattern appears again with a different group of people.

A different car group.

A different coffee shop.

A different gym.

A different neighborhood.

A different city.

A different set of faces.

But the same label.

The same themes.

The same provocation.

The same psychological pressure.

The same reversal.

The same accusation that Kevin Perlman is the problem.

That is the trap.

If one group does it, the system can call it a personality conflict.

If one coffee shop does it, the system can call it a misunderstanding.

If one car group does it, the system can say, “Maybe they just did not like him.”

But when the same pattern follows from place to place, from group to group, from gym to gym, from coffee shop to coffee shop, from city to city, and from decade to decade, the explanation changes.

That is no longer ordinary social conflict.

That is relay.

One group hands the label to the next group.

One setting hands the warning to the next setting.

One crowd hands the script to the next crowd.

The target is forced to keep moving, not because he cannot get along with people, but because the label arrives before he does.

Then the system reverses the situation.

It says:

“Kevin keeps leaving places.”

“Kevin does not get along with people.”

“Kevin is paranoid.”

“Kevin is unstable.”

“Kevin causes problems everywhere.”

But that erases the first half of the pattern.

Why did he leave?

What was happening there?

Who warned the next group?

Why did the same accusation appear in a new place?

Why did unrelated strangers suddenly know the same themes?

Why did every new environment begin acting like it had already been briefed?

That is the question the system avoids.

Because if the question is asked honestly, the answer is not “Kevin cannot get along with people.”

The answer is that the environment is being poisoned before he can participate normally.

This alleged pattern began around 1977, when I was five years old. But it did not become fully visible to me until around 2001.

That distinction matters.

A child can be targeted without understanding the targeting.

A teenager can be surrounded by scripted behavior and still think these are just strange friendships, strange teachers, strange social conflicts, or strange coincidences.

A college student can be watched, analyzed, and provoked without yet understanding the larger pattern.

For years, I did not know what I was seeing.

But in my allegation, that was by design.

The point of awareness was always part of the trap.

If a person is psychologically pressured, gaslit, provoked, monitored, isolated, and surrounded with repeated idea-of-reference tactics for years, there will eventually be a moment when he begins to recognize that something larger is happening.

The system knows that.

The family knows that.

The psychology-connected people know that.

The police-connected actors know that.

The people running the script know that.

They know that if a child is placed inside this kind of pressure system long enough, eventually the child becomes an adult who starts asking questions.

And that is the moment they are waiting for.

Because the moment of awareness can be reframed as the beginning of “mental illness.”

The target says:

“Something is going on.”

The system says:

“See? Paranoia.”

The target says:

“These people are repeating the same themes.”

The system says:

“See? Ideas of reference.”

The target says:

“This started before I understood it.”

The system says:

“See? Delusion.”

The target says:

“The same pattern follows me from place to place.”

The system says:

“See? He thinks everyone is involved.”

That is why the point of awareness is so important.

They create the condition.

They wait for the person to notice the condition.

Then they call the noticing the condition.

That is the trick.

The labels were not discovered at the point of awareness.

The labels were waiting for the point of awareness.

They were prewritten.

They were already prepared.

In my allegation, my mother, Anita Perlman — an art therapist with a psychology background who worked at Cedars-Sinai — did not simply become concerned in 2001. The psychiatric framing allegedly began decades earlier, when I was a child. By the time I began recognizing the pattern, the response was already prepared: therapists, psychiatrists, labels, explanations, and preselected narratives designed to interpret my awareness as illness.

That is not care.

That is setup logic.

It is like damaging a car for years, waiting for the engine light to come on, and then saying the engine light is the problem.

It is like taking a sledgehammer to the engine and claiming you are trying to repair the car.

You do not create damage in order to cure damage.

You do not manufacture distress in order to treat distress.

You do not create the appearance of mental illness in order to heal mental illness.

If the purpose were treatment, the system would reduce harm.

If the purpose were truth, the system would answer questions.

If the purpose were health, the system would support healthy functioning.

But if the purpose is removal, then the system needs the person to finally react to what has been done.

That is why 2001 matters.

By 2001, the pattern became harder to miss.

Michael Patrick Huntley, who had befriended me around 1986 when I was about fourteen years old, allegedly began making statements that did not sound like ordinary friendship, ordinary conflict, or ordinary concern.

Statements such as:

“World of paranoia.”

“I’ve given you enough rope to hang yourself with.”

“We are using the judicial system against you.”

“Have a good life now.”

“You had better live a careful life.”

“It’s your behavior.”

Those statements did not land like jokes.

They landed like the curtain being pulled back.

At first, I could not fully process what I was hearing. People do not normally walk up to someone and say things like “world of paranoia,” “have a good life now,” or “we are using the judicial system against you” unless something much larger is happening.

For years after that, I was dazed, confused, and in severe mental anguish trying to understand what I had just walked into.

That confusion was not weakness.

It was the normal result of seeing pieces of a hidden system before having the language to explain it.

The alleged significance of Huntley’s statements is that they suggested the setup was not new. It suggested that the trap had been developing for years.

If Huntley and others had befriended me as teenagers, remained close for years, and then, around 2001, spoke as if a long-running operation was finally entering its next phase, then the issue was not one friendship gone bad.

It was role assignment.

It was relay.

It was the same pattern that appears everywhere else: the characters change, but the script continues.

Walking away from Huntley would not have solved it.

Walking away from Paul Humphrey would not have solved it.

Walking away from one car group, one coffee shop, one gym, one school, one city, or one social circle would not solve it.

Because the issue was never one person.

The issue was the template.

The people rotate.

The settings rotate.

The accusations rotate.

The pressure points rotate.

But the pattern remains.

That is what forced migration means.

The target is pushed out of one place, then blamed for leaving.

The target is pushed into another place, then the same script appears again.

The target tries to start over, but the label arrives first.

This also means the later documentation did not create the problem.

My website did not create the mob.

My police reports did not create the targeting.

My photographs did not create the pattern.

My private investigators did not create the pattern.

The documentation came after the pressure.

The records came after the relay.

The website came after years of trying to understand what had already been happening.

That is basic cause and effect.

But the system reverses it.

It claims the documentation caused the targeting.

It claims the police reports caused the retaliation.

It claims the website caused the hostility.

It claims Kevin Perlman “does not get along with people.”

It claims Kevin Perlman is “forcing himself on groups.”

It claims Kevin Perlman is “paranoid.”

But the record exists because the pattern existed first.

The movement exists because the environments were contaminated first.

The questions exist because the targeting existed first.

The response is not the origin.

The response is the evidence that something had already been happening.

That is why the point of awareness is so important.

Before 2001, the system was allegedly operating beneath my understanding.

After 2001, I began recognizing enough of it to ask questions.

And once I began asking questions, the retaliation became louder.

The threats became clearer.

The judicial intimidation became clearer.

The mental-illness framing became more aggressive.

The pressure escalated because recognition itself became dangerous.

Not dangerous because I was violent.

Dangerous because I was beginning to understand.

Dangerous because I was beginning to connect the rotating people, the repeated tactics, the family label, the police pressure, the judicial threats, the school history, and the public humiliation.

The system does not fear the target’s behavior.

The system fears the target’s explanation.

That is why every new place becomes another stage.

The goal is not only to make Kevin Perlman leave.

The goal is to make every departure look like proof.

The target is pushed from place to place, then blamed for moving.

The target is harassed out of one environment, then called unstable for not staying.

The target is denied normal participation, then accused of failing to participate normally.

That is not social incompatibility.

That is social exclusion by design.

And it has allegedly been operating since childhood, becoming fully visible around 2001 when the people involved began saying the quiet part out loud.

The point of awareness was not the beginning of the problem.

It was the moment they tried to call awareness itself the problem.

Permission to Hurt

This is the sociology of the pattern.

Most people know that stalking, provoking, humiliating, defaming, and psychologically battering another human being is wrong.

But if the target is labeled first, the moral barrier changes.

The label gives permission.

If they believe, he is “crazy,” people think they can provoke him.

If they believe, he is “dangerous,” people think they can preemptively punish him.

If they believe, he is “unstable,” people think they can mock him.

If they think, he is “a stalker,” people think they can stalk him back.

If they believe, he is “bad,” people think cruelty becomes justice.

That is the trick.

The accusation gives people permission to do things they would normally know are wrong.

They can say:

“We are doing it because of him.”

“We are doing it because he is dangerous.”

“We are doing it because he has a history.”

“We are doing it because he deserves it.”

But that is how mobs work.

A mob does not need truth.

A mob needs permission.

Once the target is dehumanized, the crowd can laugh while harming him. They can smirk while provoking him. They can tease while destroying him. They can pretend cruelty is a joke.

That does not make the conduct harmless.

It makes the conduct more revealing.

“People Are Just Teasing You”: Laughing as Cover

One of the most important cover stories is teasing.

When my father said, in substance, that people were “just teasing,” the phrase had a much darker meaning in context.

Teasing becomes the excuse.

Mockery becomes the disguise.

Laughter becomes the camouflage.

A person can be psychologically battered in public, and when he objects, the system says:

“Relax. It is just a joke.”

But it is not a joke if the same themes repeat daily for years.

It is not a joke if the target cannot escape it.

It is not a joke if it is designed to provoke distress.

It is not a joke if it is used to create a psychiatric narrative.

It is not a joke if it is used to make someone look unstable.

It is not a joke if police, courts, family, community members, or strangers use the reaction as evidence.

Laughter does not erase harm.

A person can laugh while committing cruelty.

A person can laugh while humiliating someone.

A person can laugh while destroying a life.

That is why teasing is such an effective cover.

It lets the aggressor pretend the target is overreacting.

It lets the crowd deny intent.

It lets the system say:

“He cannot take a joke.”

But the joke is the weapon.

The smirk is the weapon.

The laughter is the weapon.

The goal is to make the target look humorless, unstable, paranoid, angry, or dangerous for objecting to repeated psychological attacks.

That is not humor.

That is sadism with plausible deniability.

The Reverse Accusation

Another tactic is reverse accusation.

The system stalks the target, then calls the target a stalker.

The system provokes the target, then calls the target aggressive.

The system humiliates the target, then calls the target unstable.

The system creates fear, then calls the target paranoid.

The system poisons relationships, then calls the target isolated.

The system spreads rumors, then calls the target obsessed for answering them.

The system documents the target, then calls the target dangerous for documenting back.

This is how the crime is hidden.

The people doing the thing accuse the target of the thing.

That is not confusion.

That is strategy.

If the target is being stalked, call him a stalker.

If the target is being abused, call him abusive.

If the target is being terrorized, call him dangerous.

If the target is being framed, call him paranoid.

That way the original conduct disappears behind the accusation.

The target is trapped defending himself against the mirror image of what is being done to him.

This is why “it’s your behavior” is so powerful.

It turns their behavior into his alleged identity.

“He Is Lying, So Do It to Him”: Repetition as Cover-Up

Another tactic is repetition as cover-up.

The target identifies a harm.

Then the system denies the harm.

Then the system repeats the harm more aggressively.

Then the system claims the repetition is justified because the target spoke about it.

That is the trick.

If I say, “My father put a shock collar on a dog,” the response becomes:

“We do not believe you, so we will shock you psychologically.”

If I say, “People are stalking me,” the response becomes:

“We do not believe you, so we will get together and stalk you.”

If I say, “People are using psychological terror tactics,” the response becomes:

“We do not believe you, so we will use psychological terror tactics.”

If I say, “This is being done to silence me,” the response becomes:

“We do not believe you, so we will punish you for speaking.”

That is not disbelief.

That is confession by repetition.

A person who truly does not believe an accusation does not recreate the accusation.

A person who truly thinks something is false does not organize people to imitate it.

A person who truly wants the truth does not punish the person for describing the conduct.

But this system does the opposite.

It takes every report, every complaint, every police report, every statement, every explanation, every act of self-defense speech, and turns it into a new excuse to do more of the same thing.

Then the cover story becomes, especially with the Police, Family, Judicial System and Psychology Community:

“Kevin is making people do this.”

“Kevin is causing the reaction.”

“Kevin is saying bad things, so people are angry.”

“Kevin is lying, so people are teaching him a lesson.”

That is another inversion.

The original abuse disappears.

The response to the abuse becomes the alleged cause.

The target reports stalking, and the system says he caused the stalking by reporting it.

The target reports threats, and the system says he caused the threats by speaking.

The target reports psychological tactics, and the system says he caused the tactics by naming them.

The target reports police misconduct, and the system says he caused retaliation by documenting it.

This is how self-defense speech is suppressed.

The message is:

“If you talk about what we are doing, we will do it harder.”

Then, when the target reacts to the escalation, the reaction is called proof.

That is not accountability.

That is retaliation.

And it shows why the phrase “it’s your behavior” is so dishonest.

The behavior being punished is not wrongdoing.

The behavior being punished is speech.

The behavior being punished is documentation.

The behavior being punished is naming the method.

The behavior being punished is refusing to let the cover story stand.

This tactic also protects the original timeline.

If the system can pretend the abuse began because the target spoke about it, then it avoids the real question:

Why was it happening before he ever spoke?

Why was it happening before he understood it?

Why did it begin when he was a child?

Why did it exist before the police reports?

Why did it exist before the website?

Why did it exist before the documentation?

Why did it exist before the target had language for it?

That is why the “he is lying, so do it to him” excuse collapses.

It cannot explain the beginning.

It cannot explain the childhood targeting.

It cannot explain the original label.

It cannot explain the family projection.

It cannot explain the early school profiling.

It cannot explain the decades of psychological shocks before the target could even identify the system.

It only explains the cover-up.

The system creates the harm.

The target names the harm.

The system repeats the harm.

Then the system blames the target for the repetition.

That is not proof that the target lied.

That is proof that the system is trying to punish him for telling the truth.

In 2001, Michael Patrick Huntley used the phrase:

“World of paranoia.”

At the time, the phrase was difficult to process. But in hindsight, it fits the same pattern.

Create a world of signals, threats, hints, staged references, and psychological pressure.

Then, when the target notices, call the noticing paranoia.

Create the maze.

Then call the person crazy for describing the maze.

That is the tactic.

And once that tactic is distributed, it spreads like every other tactic.

People repeat it.

Police repeat it.

Community members repeat it.

Strangers repeat it.

The target speaks, and the system shocks harder.

The target documents, and the system humiliates harder.

The target reports, and the system retaliates harder.

Then the system says:

“See? It is your behavior.”

But the truth is simpler:

They are not responding to wrongdoing.

They are suppressing exposure.

The Historical Pattern: Surveillance, Discrediting, and Psychiatric Control

The point is not that every historical government program automatically proves every private event in one person’s life.

The point is that the methods are not imaginary.

History already shows that governments and institutions have used surveillance, discrediting, psychological pressure, psychiatric labeling, and reputation destruction as tools of control.

COINTELPRO is one example. The historical record shows the method: monitor, infiltrate, discredit, disrupt, neutralize.

Soviet political psychiatry is another example. Psychiatry was used as a weapon against dissent and nonconformity. People could be treated as mentally ill because they disagreed with the system’s version of reality. The abuse of diagnoses such as “sluggish schizophrenia” became a major international psychiatric-ethics scandal.

MKULTRA is another historical marker. The Senate record itself described it as CIA research into behavioral modification. That matters because it proves that behavioral control was not fantasy. It was an actual government research category.

The Stasi model is another warning. Social surveillance does not require every participant to understand the full machinery. It only requires enough people to repeat the warning, report the target, provoke the target, isolate the target, and treat the target as already guilty.

The legal history matters too. In O’Connor v. Donaldson, the Supreme Court held that mental illness alone cannot justify locking up a person who is not dangerous and can live safely in freedom.

That creates a very important question:

If a person is not actually dangerous, but someone wants him confined, what must be manufactured?

Dangerousness.

That is why false violence stories matter.

That is why staged provocations matter.

That is why fake criminal scenarios matter.

That is why people are pushed to react.

That is why the narrative shifts from “he is different” to “he is dangerous.”

The goal is to build the missing bridge between a private psychiatric smear and legal confinement.

That bridge is manufactured dangerousness.

Government-Style Operations and the Question of Motive

The reason historical government operations matter is not because every historical example is identical.

The reason they matter is because they show that these methods exist.

Surveillance exists.

Discrediting exists.

Infiltration exists.

Psychological pressure exists.

Behavioral modification research exists.

Psychiatric labeling has been used politically.

Government agencies have abused power before and later called it national security, public safety, anti-subversion, medical necessity, or institutional concern.

The lesson from history is simple:

Power often does not begin by proving guilt.

Power begins by manufacturing suspicion.

Then it isolates the target.

Then it discredits the target.

Then it provokes the target.

Then it uses the reaction as proof.

Then it says:

“See? We were right about him.”

That is the template.

Discredit.

Isolate.

Provoke.

Collect.

Twist.

Neutralize.

The language changes depending on the era.

In one era, the target is called subversive.

In another, mentally ill.

In another, dangerous.

In another, criminal.

In another, extremist.

In another, unstable.

But the method is the same.

Define the person first.

Interpret the evidence second.

Punish the person third.

Call the punishment necessary.

That is why these historical parallels matter.

They show that this kind of machinery is not fantasy. It has existed in governments, police states, intelligence programs, psychiatric systems, and coercive institutions.

And when a similar structure is aimed at a child, the moral horror becomes even greater.

When Exposure Becomes the Real Threat

If this began as a family smear, then the original motive may have been shame, fear, hatred, projection, and control.

But when schools, police, community members, psychology-connected people, courts, and public groups become involved, the motive changes.

The motive becomes exposure prevention.

Once enough people have participated, the label must survive.

If the label collapses, the conduct becomes visible.

If the conduct becomes visible, the institutions become exposed.

If the institutions become exposed, the public has to ask the question nobody wants to answer:

What kind of system does this to a child?

That is why the target becomes more dangerous when he starts understanding the pattern.

Not dangerous because he is violent.

Dangerous because he can explain.

Dangerous because he can name the method.

Dangerous because he can connect the family smear to the institutional machinery.

Dangerous because he can show that the “help” was not help.

Dangerous because he can show that the label was not diagnosis.

Dangerous because he can show that the reactions were manufactured.

At that point, the target’s speech becomes the threat.

So the system must call the speech paranoia.

The target’s memory becomes the threat.

So the system must call the memory obsession.

The target’s documentation becomes the threat.

So the system must call the documentation fixation.

The target’s questions become the threat.

So the system must punish the questions.

This is where “national security” logic can become a cover story. Not because the target is a true national-security threat, but because exposure of the conduct would humiliate or implicate powerful people and institutions.

The actual threat is disclosure.

The threat is the public learning that respected systems can behave like predators while calling themselves protectors.

The threat is the public learning that the language of concern can be used as a costume for removal.

That is why the system does not simply walk away.

A person can walk away from a misunderstanding.

A family can walk away from a disagreement.

But an operation cannot walk away from exposure.

It has to keep the cover story alive.

Engineered Self-Destruction as a Disappearance Method

There is an even darker possibility that has to be named carefully.

If a system labels someone as unstable for years, isolates him, humiliates him, provokes him, destroys his relationships, blocks normal life, ignores his reports, discredits his evidence, and then increases the pressure whenever he becomes healthier, one possible end result is self-destruction.

That is not an accident.

It is one of the cleanest ways for a system to make a person disappear while avoiding accountability.

If the person dies, the same manufactured labels can be used afterward:

“He was unstable.”

“He was paranoid.”

“He had mental-health issues.”

“We tried to help him.”

“It was his behavior.”

Then nobody investigates the pressure that created the collapse.

Nobody investigates the provocations.

Nobody investigates the humiliation.

Nobody investigates the retaliation.

Nobody investigates the ignored evidence.

Nobody investigates the authority figures who direct and protect the mob.

Nobody investigates the people who push the button every day and then pretend the button does not exist.

That is why unofficial labels are so dangerous.

A person does not even need a real clinical history for the story to be planted.

The label can be created socially.

The label can be repeated publicly.

The label can be spread by family, police, schools, courts, psychology-connected people, and community members.

Then, if the person is destroyed, the label becomes the explanation.

That is the darkest form of cover-up.

Create the distress.

Create the isolation.

Create the humiliation.

Create the hopelessness.

Then call the final result mental illness.

That is not help.

That is an eradication pathway.

It removes the person and buries the method under the very narrative used to destroy him.

Fear-Mongering the Crowd

A system like this does not require every participant to understand the whole story.

Some people may believe the label.

Some may half-believe it.

Some may not care.

Some may enjoy the cruelty.

Some may think they are helping.

Some may think the end justifies the means.

Some may tell themselves:

“He is crazy, so this is allowed.”

“He is dangerous, so this is for safety.”

“He has a history, so we are doing the right thing.”

“If he reacts, that proves we were right.”

That is how fear-mongering recruits ordinary people.

The target is pre-labeled as dangerous, unstable, guilty, hateful, or defective. Once that label is accepted, people feel permitted to treat him in ways they would normally know are wrong.

They tease.

They provoke.

They repeat private information.

They laugh.

They report.

They participate.

They tell themselves it is for the greater good.

That is the psychology of mobs.

The crowd does not need proof if it has permission.

The label gives permission.

The fear gives permission.

The group gives permission.

And once the target reacts to being treated like prey, the crowd says:

“See? That is why we did it.”

That is the circular logic.

They fear-monger the crowd into shocking the target.

Then they use the target’s distress as proof that the fear-mongering was justified.

This is how a lie becomes social behavior.

Dissemination: Turning Every Fragment Into Public Shame

Another part of the machinery is dissemination.

Any fragment that can be used is instantly spread.

Any private detail becomes public material.

Any emotional reaction becomes gossip.

Any attempt to explain becomes “proof.”

Any attempt to defend yourself becomes “instability.”

Any attempt to document becomes “obsession.”

Any attempt to expose the pattern becomes “paranoia.”

This means the system is not gathering facts to learn the truth. It is gathering fragments to feed an echo chamber.

If the target says something in therapy, the fear is that it becomes public shame.

If the target explains himself to family, the fear is that it becomes another twisted story.

If the target writes online, the response is retaliation.

If the target documents, the response is intimidation.

If the target creates a paper trail, the pressure escalates.

That escalation reveals motive.

If the goal were truth, documentation would help.

If the goal were safety, evidence would clarify.

If the goal were healing, communication would matter.

But if the goal is cover-up, then documentation becomes dangerous.

That is why retaliation increases when the target starts creating a record.

The target is not being punished because he is wrong.

The target is being punished because he is becoming harder to erase.

Poisoning the World Around a Person

If the goal were help, the environment would be designed to help the person function.

But what happens when the environment is designed to do the opposite?

What happens when almost every human interaction becomes a provocation?

What happens when friends are not really friends, but collectors?

What happens when dates become traps?

What happens when public places become stages?

What happens when strangers repeat the same themes, same insults, same hints, same psychological triggers, jumping from person to person like a script?

That is not help.

That is social poisoning.

If someone truly believed another person needed help, they would not destroy every possible place where that person could heal, belong, work, date, create, relax, or prove the accusation false.

No one poisons every social environment because they want recovery.

They poison every social environment because they want no reentry.

That is not treatment.

That is exile.

The Impossibility of Cure for a Fake Problem

Here is the common-sense contradiction.

If there is no real clinical problem, then there is nothing to cure.

If the “problem” was invented by the people claiming to help, then treatment becomes impossible because the treatment is based on a lie.

You cannot be cured of someone else’s false accusation.

If a person is placed into a cage based on a fake story, then there is no path out, because the system is not measuring reality. It is measuring submission to the false story.

If you deny the label, they call it lack of insight.

If you object to the lie, they call it paranoia.

If you get angry about being trapped, they call it instability.

If you try to leave, they call it danger.

That is not medicine.

That is false-premise confinement.

That is a cage wearing a doctor’s coat.

The Moral Inversion

This is where the moral hypocrisy becomes impossible to ignore.

A family can go to temple.

A family can condemn the Holocaust.

A family can speak publicly against Nazis, fascism, cruelty, racism, oppression, and dehumanization.

But none of that matters if, inside its own life, it reproduces the same moral mechanism it claims to oppose.

The mechanism is dehumanization.

The mechanism is:

This person is less than us.

This person is dangerous.

This person is defective.

This person does not deserve normal rights.

This person does not deserve privacy.

This person does not deserve dignity.

This person does not deserve to be believed.

This person does not deserve to live freely.

That is the authoritarian impulse.

It is the same moral structure found in slavery, caste systems, concentration camps, political psychiatry, and every system where one group claims the right to define another person as subhuman, diseased, dangerous, or removable.

The comparison is not about identical historical scale.

It is about the shared mechanism.

A slave asks why he is being whipped.

The answer is more whipping.

An oppressed person asks why he is being hated.

The answer is more punishment.

A targeted person asks why the shocks will not stop.

The answer is more shocks.

Then the question itself is used against him.

He is resisting.

He is unstable.

He is paranoid.

He refuses help.

He does not understand his behavior.

That is the oldest trick of oppression.

Create the suffering, then criminalize the cry.

Create the cage, then call escape dangerous.

Create the fear, then call fear mental illness.

Create the isolation, then call isolation proof that the person is defective.

Create the anger, then call anger dangerousness.

From Animal Experiments to Human Social Control

The pattern is simple.

Create a controlled environment.

Apply repeated consequences.

Punish unwanted behavior.

Reward compliance.

Pair neutral things with fear.

Isolate the subject.

Create helplessness.

Label the subject.

Watch the reaction.

Call the reaction proof.

This is why the shock-collar example matters.

It shows the same logic in everyday form:

I do not like what you are doing.

I will cause pain.

You will learn.

But when applied to a child, a family, a school, a community, a police system, or a lifetime of public provocation, the same logic becomes monstrous.

The person is no longer being taught.

The person is being broken.

And when the person asks why the shocks will not stop, the question itself is punished.

That is not science.

That is not treatment.

That is not concern.

That is behavioral abuse wearing the language of psychology.

Why Start With a Five-Year-Old?

This is the question that exposes the motive.

Why begin with a five-year-old?

A five-year-old is barely developed.

A five-year-old does not have a criminal identity.

A five-year-old does not have a political position.

A five-year-old cannot deserve a lifelong system of psychological shocks, social labeling, surveillance, provocation, and punishment.

At most, a five-year-old may show anxiety, sensitivity, fear, frustration, awkwardness, curiosity, confusion, or ordinary childhood imperfection.

But ordinary childhood imperfection is not a justification for lifelong punishment.

So why exploit it?

Why take a child’s nervousness, confusion, warmth, social awkwardness, sensitivity, or imperfection and use it as the seed of a psychiatric story?

Why turn a child into a project?

Why turn a child into a suspect?

Why turn a child into something to be watched?

The answer cannot be “help.”

Help does not torture the child.

Help does not shock the child into distress.

Help does not create the condition it claims to treat.

Help does not punish the child for asking why.

Help does not follow the child into adulthood and attack every healthy behavior.

The motive has to be something else.

The motive is hostile control.

The deeper motive is removal.

The child is treated as a problem before the child has done anything to earn that role. That means the problem is not created by the child. The problem is created by the people assigning the role.

This is projection.

This is shame.

This is superiority.

This is fear.

This is the godlike belief that certain adults have the right to decide whether a child belongs in normal life at all.

And when adults with psychology backgrounds begin using psychological language to justify pain, the danger becomes extreme.

Because the pain is no longer called pain.

It is called correction.

The coercion is no longer called coercion.

It is called concern.

The cage is no longer called a cage.

It is called help.

That is the moral inversion.

The person causing harm claims to be the healer.

The person being harmed is called the problem.

That is why the five-year-old matters.

Because if the system begins before the child can possibly deserve the label, then the label was never an observation.

It was an intention.

The Family Psychology Behind the Machine

The family psychology is the engine.

The public story is concern.

The private behavior is domination.

A family that truly wants a child to live well does not poison his name before he reaches adulthood. It does not follow him from school to school, city to city, relationship to relationship, and decade to decade. It does not turn friends into collectors, dates into traps, teachers into monitors, and strangers into provokers.

That is not concern.

That is ownership.

The family appears to project its own shame, rage, fear, superiority, and hidden ugliness onto the child. The child becomes the container for everything the family refuses to face in itself.

Instead of saying, “Something is wrong in this family,” the family says:

“Something is wrong with him.”

That is the scapegoat mechanism.

But this goes beyond ordinary scapegoating because the family allegedly used psychological language and outside networks to export the label.

The child is not simply disliked.

The child is defined.

The child is not simply criticized.

The child is interpreted.

The child is not simply punished.

The child is converted into a story.

And once the story exists, the family needs the world to keep repeating it.

That is where motive becomes obvious.

If the person succeeds, the story weakens.

If the person makes friends, the story weakens.

If the person dates, the story weakens.

If the person works, the story weakens.

If the person creates, the story weakens.

If the person proves normal functioning, the story weakens.

So the system escalates.

Success is treated as a threat because success disproves the label.

That is why the motive cannot be help.

Real concern would be relieved by functioning. Real concern would say:

“Good, he is living his life.”

But hostile containment says:

“He is escaping the label. Increase pressure.”

That is the tell.

The more the target proves the story false, the angrier the system becomes.

That anger reveals the motive.

It was never about cure.

It was about control, punishment, and removal.

The Purpose of Never Stopping

If the purpose were correction, the punishment would stop when the person corrected the alleged behavior.

If the purpose were health, the pressure would stop when the person chose healthy behavior.

If the purpose were safety, the pressure would stop when the person walked away.

If the purpose were truth, the system would answer the question.

But if the button keeps being pushed no matter what the person does, then the button is not being used to correct behavior.

It is being used to create evidence.

The person is shocked until he reacts.

Then the reaction is called instability.

The person is isolated until he becomes exhausted.

Then the exhaustion is called illness.

The person is provoked until he gets angry.

Then the anger is called dangerousness.

The person is followed until he complains.

Then the complaint is called paranoia.

That is the motive.

Not cure.

Not concern.

Not family love.

Evidence production.

The system needs reactions, so it manufactures them.

It needs symptoms, so it creates distress.

It needs dangerousness, so it provokes anger.

It needs silence, so it threatens more shocks.

It needs the person to stop exposing the family, the institutions, and the people involved, so it teaches the person:

If you talk, we push the button.

But the cruelty is that the button is pushed anyway.

That means the purpose is not silence alone.

The purpose is damage.

The purpose is to grind the person down until the label finally appears true.

That is why the shock-collar model is the center of the entire story.

They push the button, create distress, erase the button, and call the distress proof.

The Constitutional Question

This is not only personal.

It is constitutional.

If a government, police department, school system, psychology-connected network, or public-private security culture can label a child as an unknown quantity, follow him, poison his reputation, provoke him, and try to manufacture dangerousness before he has actually done anything, then no citizen is safe.

If this can happen to one child, it can happen to another child.

If this can happen to one son, it can happen to someone else’s son.

If a person can be treated as guilty before conduct exists, then the Bill of Rights becomes decorative paper.

The United States was built around the idea that government power must be limited.

People came here, fought here, and built constitutional protections because unchecked power becomes tyranny.

You do not get to remove someone from society because you are afraid of what he might become.

You do not get to stalk someone because you do not understand him.

You do not get to punish someone because he is different.

You do not get to manufacture evidence because the facts are not enough.

You do not get to turn public life into a cage because a family, institution, police network, or crowd decided a person is undesirable.

That is not America.

That is exactly the kind of government tyranny constitutional rights were designed to prevent.

If the accusation is real, state it.

If the conduct is real, prove it.

If the danger is real, identify it.

If there is probable cause, present it.

But if the system requires rumors, hints, teasing, provocation, humiliation, strangers, staged interactions, and endless psychological shocks, then the system is not operating from law.

It is operating from fear.

The Question They Cannot Allow

This is why the questions are dangerous.

Who is doing this?

How is it being coordinated?

Who is paying for it?

Who is spreading the label?

Who first created the warning?

Who told strangers what to say?

Who told police what to expect?

Who told teachers how to interpret the child?

Who told communities that this person was dangerous?

Who benefits from the label?

Who is protected if the label stays alive?

Who is exposed if the label collapses?

Those questions are not paranoid.

Those are the exact questions any free citizen should ask when a pattern appears too large, too organized, too repetitive, and too impossible to be random.

The reason the system must call the questions mental illness is because the questions point toward responsibility.

If the target asks why one person is teasing him, that can be dismissed.

If the target asks why the same theme follows him into every public place, that threatens the whole operation.

If the target asks why the pattern started when he was a child, that threatens the family narrative.

If the target asks why police were prepared for a psychiatric reaction, that threatens the institutional narrative.

If the target asks why documentation created retaliation, that threatens the cover-up.

That is why the questions themselves become forbidden.

The system does not fear the target’s behavior.

The system fears the target’s explanation.

The Real Definition

So what is it?

It is not concern.

It is not treatment.

It is not ordinary family conflict.

It is not normal criticism.

It is not legitimate diagnosis.

It is:

control through micromanagement, expanded into a privately manufactured psychiatric smear, then amplified into authority-directed social and institutional eradication.

More fully:

It is a family-originated, police-monitored, psychology-directed, school-amplified, internet-expanded, judicially protected, pseudo-clinical social-eradication system in which tactics are allegedly supplied to private citizens, teachers, friends, community members, and public groups so they can stalk, provoke, humiliate, frame, and psychologically shock Kevin Perlman while ordinary behavior is collected, twisted, and broadcast as evidence of mental illness, dangerousness, hatred, guilt, or instability — all so Kevin Perlman can be isolated, discredited, confined, erased, or removed from normal life while the perpetrators call it concern.

That is the definition.

The Cover Story

The cover story is always polite.

“We are concerned.”

“He needs help.”

“It is his behavior.”

“He is unstable.”

“He is dangerous.”

“He has a history.”

“We are protecting people.”

“We are trying to do the right thing.”

But the conduct says something else.

The conduct says:

We will not leave you alone.

We will follow you.

We will collect on you.

We will twist everything.

We will poison your relationships.

We will make strangers participate.

We will provoke reactions.

We will call the reactions proof.

We will use the system against you.

We will keep doing it until you disappear.

And the authority layer says:

We will direct the tactic.

We will protect the actor.

We will not punish the people who do this.

We will not take your evidence seriously.

We will not treat your reports equally.

We will not protect you from the people we have sent or protected.

We will call your complaints proof that you are unstable.

That is not help.

That is punishment without trial.

That is custody without consent.

That is social execution disguised as concern.

The Final Point

If someone has to stalk, provoke, defame, isolate, fabricate, and poison every social environment to prove that a person is unstable, then they have already admitted the truth:

The instability was not found.

It had to be manufactured.

And if it had to be manufactured, then the person was never the original problem.

The people manufacturing it were.

That is why “it’s your behavior” is the oldest trick in the system.

They create the pressure.

They collect the reaction.

They erase the pressure.

They display the reaction.

Then they call the reaction proof.

But the bigger picture is clear.

This is not behavior correction.

This is not mental health.

This is not concern.

This is control through micromanagement, disguised as observation, expanded into social poisoning, and aimed at eradication.

They were not trying to cure a condition.

They were trying to create one.

And once they created enough distress, they tried to use that distress as the excuse for the cage.

The psychological warfare being directed at me, Kevin Perelman, is not random harassment, misunderstanding, ordinary conflict, or isolated misconduct. It is an ongoing, highly strategic, premeditated campaign designed to remove a person from society without having to openly admit that removal is the goal.

In my case, this begins around 1977, when I was approximately five years old. That point matters because the entire operation is built on the exploitation of imperfection. A five-year-old child shows shyness or anxiety, and instead of treating it as ordinary childhood fear, stress, sensitivity, or development, the people around him exploit it. They take a tiny human imperfection and turn it into a lifelong narrative. They do not help the child. They study the vulnerability. They preserve it. They exploit it, they weaponize it.

That is the core tactic: find the smallest flaw, exaggerate it, attach a label to it, and then use that label to justify escalating abuse.

A child has anxiety.

A child is too shy to talk to a girl.
A teenager pulls a few eyebrow hairs under stress.
A person leaves a Coke can on a bench.
A person goes on a date and it does not work out.
A person asks why strange things are happening around him in 2001 to his friend and business partner since 14 met with Judicial Death threats and Worldwide Support to eradicate at all costs.

In normal life, imperfection has a natural ending. If a man goes on a date with a woman and it does not work out, both people move on. Maybe someone was tired. Maybe someone yawned. Maybe the chemistry was not there. Maybe one person was hypersensitive. In a normal society, that becomes nothing more than an ordinary failed date.

But in my case, ordinary imperfections are not allowed to end naturally. They are archived, exaggerated, broadcast, and weaponized. Worldwide groups and mass community circles are told, again and again, “Look what he did now,” until a harmless or minor event becomes part of a manufactured record. A failed date becomes a character attack. A yawn becomes “he is rude,” “he harasses women,” or “he is a womanizer.” A small mistake becomes another entry in a global laundry list of fiction.

That is defamation of character by design.

The purpose is not to understand what happened. The purpose is to build a permanent archive of distorted events, stripped of context, that can be used as a weapon. Each little imperfection is preserved, inflated, and connected to the next one, creating the illusion of a pattern where no honest pattern exists.

That shows premeditation, motive, and intent from day one. The goal is not to let ordinary human situations fizzle out. The goal is to exploit each minor imperfection, provoke more reactions, and then add those reactions to the same fictional archive. Instead of saying, “It just didn’t work out,” or “That was a normal human mistake,” the system escalates. It uses the smallest moments to justify bigger and bigger attacks.

That is the difference between normal life and an organized campaign. Normal people move on. This system collects, distorts, broadcasts, and weaponizes.

The system does not pour water on the fire. It pours gasoline on it and then blames the target for the flames.

That is the brilliance of the tactic — not moral brilliance, but criminal brilliance. It is detailed, patient, layered, and engineered so that every part of the system protects every other part. Family members, community members, police, courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, psychiatric labels, public rumors, internet-based harassment, and government power all function together to create one manufactured conclusion: that the target is the problem and society is justified in removing him.

This is what makes the tactic so dangerous. It does not simply attack a person directly. It first builds a false identity around the person. It creates a label. It repeats the label. It provokes the target. It watches for reactions. It strips away context. It converts normal self-defense into alleged instability. Then the government, police, courts, and psychology community point to the artificially created pressure and call it evidence.

The Perelman family, police, government actors, and psychology community pretend they do not understand the difference between calming a situation and escalating it. But they do understand. Everyone understands that you do not pour gasoline on a fire to put it out. You pour water on it. When people repeatedly choose gasoline, year after year, decade after decade, the conclusion is obvious: they are not trying to put the fire out. They are trying to make it bigger.

The strategy is not accidental. It is too consistent, too repetitive, too coordinated, and too useful to the people benefiting from it. The entire structure operates like a social and legal trap: manufacture a psychiatric or criminal image, isolate the person, block his ability to defend himself, and then use the blocked defense as further proof that he does not belong in society.

In my case, what begins in 1977 does not remain in the past. It continues through the present, through ongoing legal abuse, police misconduct, psychiatric labeling, courtroom manipulation, public gaslighting, and political exploitation under systems like Governor Gavin Newsom’s CARE Act. The goal remains the same: to make me look dangerous, unstable, defective, or socially unacceptable so that removing me from society appears justified.

The true genius of the operation is that it disguises destruction as concern. It disguises stalking as public safety. It disguises coercion as treatment. It disguises political profit as compassion. It disguises legal corruption as procedure. It disguises hate as social order.

The dated events belong to history, but the machinery is current. What happened in the past explains the pattern; what is happening now shows the pattern is still expanding. Lawyers are refusing meaningful defense. Prosecutors are manufacturing narratives. Judges are allowing misconduct. Police are escalating labels. The psychology community is being used as a weapon. Government policy is moving backward toward forced control. The system is not correcting itself. It is expanding.

A Life Defined by Relentless Orchestration

From early childhood, the pattern is to take ordinary human behavior and twist it into something sinister. If I showed anxiety, it was treated as a defect. If I reacted to stress, it was treated as proof that I was unstable. Around age 12, when I had a nervous habit involving eyebrow pulling — something that could be described as trichotillomania or stress-related hair pulling — that too was treated not as a minor stress response, but as a weaponized label.

In today’s world, people commonly discuss ADHD, anxiety, OCD, trauma, depression, stress habits, and all kinds of manageable psychological or behavioral conditions. None of those things justify stripping a person of rights. None justify stalking someone, framing someone, provoking someone, or trying to lock someone away. But in my case, even the smallest sign of stress was treated as though it were a life sentence.

The message seemed to be: if your name is Kevin Perelman, even ordinary childhood anxiety or a nervous habit can be turned into a reason to destroy your life.

This is never about help. If it were about help, then every attempt I make to live a healthy, productive life would be welcomed. Instead, the opposite happens. The more I try to be healthy, stable, productive, creative, independent, and socially normal, the angrier my family, police, government actors, parts of the psychology community, and mass harassment groups become. That fact alone reveals the motive. People who genuinely want someone healthy do not become enraged when that person improves. People do not try to sabotage another person’s health unless their goal is harm.

One of the nonstop examples from my adolescence probably around the age of 14, still going on today, almost daily shows the level of planning and symbolic manipulation involved.

At age 14, I was taken on a Bahama cruise with Ron Perelman, Jason Perelman my father and brother, with Jason’s friend Darren Moselle. During that cruise, Jason Perelman and Darren Moselle encouraged me to drink as many alcohol shots as possible with them at the bars on the cruise ship — specifically  Kamikazes and B-52s. Those names matter. They were not random drinks. They are references tied to war, airplanes, bombing, and World War II imagery. At the same time, Jason Perelman bought a Kershaw pocketknife, handed it to me, and said, “I bought you a knife.” Because he wanted the knife of me to make me look paranoid, with their schizophrenia tactics while trying to invoke reactions to create the illusion of a violent paranoid schitzofrenic.

The setup and frame job were not simply about getting a teenager drunk. They were about creating an image: Kevin Perelman, with a last name sounding like “Pearl Harbor,” drinking Kamikazes and B-52s, being handed a knife, and then being provoked into looking belligerent or dangerous. The attempt was to connect my identity to war symbolism, violence, and supposed mental illness — as though I were conforming to media or historical references in a schizophrenic or delusional way.

Ironically, this also connects to Ron Perelman, my father, taking us to see Wizards by Ralph Bakshi. In that film, Nazi imagery is projected into the sky as part of a good-versus-evil narrative involving wizard brothers and a mutant war. The evil brother, Blackwolf, uses projected Nazi imagery as a weapon against what is left of humanity. At the same time, Jason was hosting his bulletin board service, The Warriors Castle, using 56K dial-up modems and an Atari 800 computer.

That is the kind of manipulation I am talking about. It is not simply one event. It is a pattern of staging, symbolism, provocation, and narrative creation.

Small, ordinary acts are treated the same way. If I leave a Coke can on a park bench, it can be turned into “he is a litterer” or “he does not respect society.” If I yawn on a date because I am tired, it can be turned into “he harasses women,” “he is rude,” or “he is a womanizer.” If I visit a website, send an email, or say something in a conversation, people can later play hinting games — implying they know private details — to destabilize me and force a reaction.

The goal is always the same: take something minor, strip it of context, exaggerate it, broadcast it, then use the public reaction to justify more harassment.

The Dehumanization of the Target

The deeper issue is dehumanization. I am not treated as a person with rights, dignity, emotions, or legal protections. I am treated like an object, a slave, a piece of property, or a disposable target. The campaign against me is not based on law and order. It is based on hierarchy: the idea that Kevin Perelman is somehow inferior, and therefore ordinary laws do not apply when people harm him.

That is why I describe this as hatred. It is not just harassment. It is not just defamation. It is not just legal misconduct. It is a worldview in which one person can be declared beneath the protection of the law, and then everyone else is allowed to participate in his destruction.

That is how atrocities begin. First, a person is labeled. Then the label becomes more important than the person. Then the person’s words no longer matter. Then the person’s rights no longer matter. Then harm against that person becomes justified as “help,” “safety,” “public concern,” or “mental health intervention.”

Historical Playbooks: Gestapo, Stasi, COINTELPRO, NSA, and Vault 7

The tactics being used against me do not come from nowhere. They resemble methods used by repressive states and intelligence operations throughout history.

The Gestapo used informants, dossiers, suspicion, rumor, and fear to isolate and destroy people. The target did not need to commit a real crime. The accusation itself became enough to justify persecution.

The Stasi in East Germany developed psychological warfare tactics known as Zersetzung, or decomposition. The goal was not always to arrest someone immediately. It was to break the target psychologically, socially, professionally, and emotionally. Friends, neighbors, employers, institutions, and officials could be used to make daily life unbearable while maintaining plausible deniability.

COINTELPRO, conducted by the FBI, showed that even in the United States, government agencies have used surveillance, infiltration, false narratives, disruption, and character assassination against citizens and political groups. The public-facing justification was security. The real-world effect was often the destruction of civil rights, dissent, and reputation.

The NSA, or National Security Agency, is critical to this discussion because mass surveillance creates the technical backbone for this kind of abuse. Once communications, browsing, metadata, associations, and private activity can be monitored or inferred, the information can be weaponized. It can be used to intimidate, manipulate, hint, smear, or provoke. The public is told surveillance is for national security, but surveillance systems can become the problem when they are turned against citizens.

Vault 7, involving CIA cyber capabilities revealed to the public, demonstrated the modern scale of digital intrusion and covert technological power. The significance is not merely that tools exist. The significance is that once such tools exist, the public must ask how they can be abused, who controls them, and what happens when secrecy becomes a shield for misconduct.

The common thread is always the same: a system claims to protect society while quietly building tools to monitor, manipulate, discredit, and destroy selected targets.

That is why these historical comparisons matter. They show that psychological destruction, surveillance, rumor campaigns, and institutional cover stories are not imaginary concepts. They are known tools of power.

Van Nuys Courthouse, LAPD, and the Courtroom as a Weapon

In my experience, the Van Nuys Courthouse and the Los Angeles Police Department are central to this campaign. What should be a justice system functions as a machine for manufacturing guilt.

Prosecutors, including Lisa Orbelli in the 2023 case, rely on hearsay, emotional claims, and newly invented accusations rather than evidence. Claims are made that I am following people home, taking pictures, or trying to incite violence — yet Lead Officer Charles Sean did not personally witness these things. Instead of courtroom procedure, evidence, investigation, and cross-examination, these claims are pushed verbally as coercive narratives to judges.

That is not justice. That is narrative manufacturing.

The pattern is to pad the case with newer and newer accusations, often appearing during trial or proceedings, without proper investigation or substantiation. The goal is to overwhelm the record with volume: if enough accusations are thrown into the air, the court begins to treat the smoke as fire.

This is especially dangerous when the defense attorney refuses to do the job of defense.

Defense attorneys are supposed to speak on behalf of the accused. They are supposed to cross-examine witnesses, expose motive, reveal bias, impeach false testimony, challenge hearsay, and protect the defendant’s constitutional rights. In a case involving alleged provocation, harassment, and staged reactions, the defense attorney’s job is even more important: to show intent, malice, premeditation, and motive to instigate.

But in my cases, I allege that defense attorneys are refusing to defend me at all costs.

Jonathan Franklin allegedly stated in 2013, “I’m not going to say anything bad about a police officer,” while still taking money and failing to provide a fair defense. That statement, if accurately remembered, summarizes the entire failure: a defense attorney who refuses to challenge police misconduct is not defending the client. He is protecting the system.

Shep Zeberman allegedly told me, in substance, that we could “get out of this” because he knew the appropriate psychology people and could get the right labels for me. That is not a defense strategy. That is a path toward psychiatric destruction. Instead of proving innocence or exposing misconduct, the attorney’s solution was to move me toward the very labeling system being weaponized against me.

In three cases, I allege that defense attorneys refuse to cross-examine properly, refuse to impeach witnesses, refuse to file meaningful motions, refuse to challenge false police reports, and refuse to build a real defense.

Judges, including Judge Dohey at Van Nuys Courthouse, allow these abuses to continue. If judges know that prosecutors are relying on hearsay, that police are fabricating or exaggerating, and that defense attorneys are refusing to defend, then the judge is no longer a neutral referee. The judge becomes part of the machinery.

I also allege that court personnel and related individuals are part of the intimidation environment, including Debbie Woolman, a court reporter who allegedly purchased property adjoining my wall but did not live there. In the context of everything else, even acts like this appear less like coincidence and more like psychological pressure.

Appeals, Ineffective Assistance, and the Protection of Judicial Corruption

The appellate process continues the same pattern. The appeal does not meaningfully bring in the core issue: intent, malice, judicial corruption, prosecutorial misconduct, police fabrication, and the refusal of defense attorneys to expose any of it. Instead, the system narrows the case, sanitizes it, and avoids the real misconduct that makes the trial unfair in the first place.

A trial cannot be fair when defense counsel refuses, at all costs, to expose judicial corruption, police misconduct, prosecutorial fabrication, and the motives behind the accusations. That is ineffective assistance of counsel in its most damaging form. It is not merely a missed objection or a weak strategy. It is the abandonment of the central defense.

When the defense refuses to show that witnesses have motive, intent, malice, and a reason to provoke or frame the defendant, the jury never sees the real case. When the defense refuses to cross-examine witnesses on corruption, bias, fabrication, and coordinated misconduct, the trial becomes theater. The prosecution presents a manufactured story, the defense refuses to dismantle it, and the judge allows the false structure to stand.

On appeal, the same concealment continues. The appellate process avoids the judicial corruption itself, even though exposing corruption is the only way to strengthen the legal system. Hiding corruption does not protect the courts. It weakens them. It allows judges, prosecutors, police officers, and attorneys to operate on private agendas instead of law and order.

If appellate judges and appellate attorneys refuse to confront the corruption beneath the conviction, they are not preserving justice. They are preserving the machinery that produced the injustice. They are protecting the appearance of the system while sacrificing the integrity of the system.

A functioning appellate court should expose legal rot so the courts can correct themselves. Instead, the process is being used to bury the rot, protect the trial court, and prevent accountability. That is why the appeal becomes part of the same campaign: no self-defense, no transparency, no accountability, and no admission that the original trial was structurally unfair.

The result is not law. It is damage control for judicial misconduct.

Weaponizing Psychiatry and Labels

The campaign depends on psychiatric labeling because psychiatric labels can be used to bypass ordinary legal and moral safeguards. If a person is accused of a crime, evidence is supposed to matter. But if a person is labeled “mentally ill,” suddenly officials can pretend coercion is care.

That is the danger.

The system first creates the pressure, then labels the reaction. It stalks, provokes, isolates, humiliates, and threatens — then, if the target reacts, the reaction is called proof of illness. That is not diagnosis. That is entrapment.

If officials have to stalk someone, provoke someone, frame someone, and manipulate someone to make that person appear mentally ill, then they already know the label is false or insufficient. A truly dangerous person does not require a global theater production to appear dangerous. The fact that the appearance has to be manufactured proves the fraud.

This is where the legal history becomes extremely important.

The Suppression of Self-Defense: Turning Questions Into “Symptoms”

One of the most brilliant and malicious features of this operation is the suppression of every form of self-defense — even verbal self-defense. The strategy is not only to harm the target, but to make it impossible for the target to describe the harm without the description itself being twisted into alleged evidence of mental illness, paranoia, hostility, or violence.

That is the calculated genius of gaslighting. The perpetrators create the conditions, hide the source, provoke the reactions, violate privacy, threaten the target, and then wait for the inevitable moment when the target begins asking questions. The moment the target says, “Something is wrong,” the system turns around and says, “See, he is paranoid.”

That is not an accident. That is the intended destination.

In my case — and probably in many cases like this — the pressure is pushed nonstop and daily, with groups locally and worldwide attempting to provoke reactions, fear, anger, and ultimately violence. But based on the entire pattern, they know the target is not violent. That is the point. If the target were naturally violent, they would not need decades of gaslighting, stalking, privacy violations, staged provocations, false accusations, and social pressure to create the appearance of violence.

They know the target is not violent.
They want the target to look violent.

That distinction exposes the agenda.

Around 2001, after decades of daily provocations, privacy violations, strange social manipulation, and computer-related intrusions designed to invoke reactions that had been exponentially growing since 1977, I began to recognize that something larger was happening. I began asking my friend and business partner, Michael Patrick Huntley, what exactly was going on. Instead of concern, honesty, or reassurance, I was met with threats and intimidation. The responses included statements and messages in substance such as: “world of paranoia,” “have a good life now,” “we are using the judicial system against you,” and “you better live a careful life.”

These were not the responses of a friend concerned about confusion or distress. They were the responses of someone participating in coercion.

Around that same period, Michael Patrick Huntley, Ron Perelman, my father, and LAPD-connected actors were involved in trying to set me up with Lead Officer Charles Sean Dinse, Officer Jenson, Detective Shapiro, Detective Angela Stewart, and many others. Most importantly, another friend I had known since I was 14 years old, Paul Humphrey, also became heavily involved in these operations. Around the same time Michael Patrick Huntley latched onto me and began stalking me, Paul Humphrey was also involved. In 1998, Paul worked for LAPD and later used security-company resources to stalk me.

After my family, along with Michael Patrick Huntley, lured me back from the University of Colorado by pitching an internet hosting provider Huntley wanted to start called Signet-e Services, the setup, as I understood it, involved trying to get me to take a trash bag full of LAPD-confiscated marijuana in order to create the appearance that I was a drug dealer. At the same time, my father was trying to create the appearance that I had guns or weapons in my house in order to make me look dangerous.

As my family was luring me back from Colorado, Ron Perelman, my father, was marrying a Cuban woman he had met named Janet Nordet. She went from a “Suzy Homemaker” image into what appeared to be paranoia. Eventually, he had a child with her, and she later ended up in jail for three years. I was told it was for solicitation to commit murder. Ironically, the same patterns that were used against her appear to have been used against me by my own father and his office employees, following an almost identical template.

While I cannot vouch for her actions, I can vouch for my own. The pattern suggests that my father may have married her, in part, to pin his narratives on me — accusing me of doing things to her in order to cover up what he was doing to her and to me. The timing was too perfect: he called me and told me I should move back, offering to let me live in his house for a year. At the same time, he was trying to rile me up against his wife by taking me out to dinner every Sunday night, pretending it was about bonding with his child.

The cruelty of the tactic is that it was presented under the language of help. It was framed as, “I want to help you have a good life,” while every meaningful part of my life — my name, reputation, relationships, privacy, business, credibility, and standing in society — was being damaged or destroyed worldwide.

That is not help. That is a setup.

It is the same strategy again and again: create the appearance of danger, create the appearance of criminality, create the appearance of instability, and then use the manufactured appearance to justify state intervention. The trash bag of LAPD-confiscated marijuana setup, involving Mike Huntley and Rodie Morales, while they were taking me to strip clubs across Los Angeles, Colorado, and Oregon, was part of creating the image of an obsessed drug dealer. At the same time, I allege they were paying off strippers and porn stars to stalk me, cry wolf, and play the victim.

The drug narrative would create the image of an obsessed drug dealer. The gun and weapon narrative would create the image of a dangerous person. The psychiatric labeling would create the image of someone who should not be believed. Together, the combined narrative becomes a pretext to remove someone from society.

This reflects an extreme amount of hatred from the Perelman family against their own child — beginning when I was five years old and obsessively growing over 49 years.

Around the same time, my own mother angrily told me to “go to a psychiatrist and tell them everything,” while having a prepared list of phone numbers ready to give me at the exact moment I began realizing something was wrong. That detail matters because it shows preparation. It was not spontaneous concern. It appeared staged for the moment I reached the point they had been pushing me toward.

This is how the trap works. If I say, “Leave me alone,” they can call it hostility. If I walk away from any of the nonstop situations, they call it paranoia, If I say, “You people are sick,” or react to any aspect of it, on any level, they will call it instability. If I say, “Why are you doing this?” they can call it paranoia. If I describe the pattern, they can claim I am seeing things that are not there. If I give them video of direct or indirect proof of provokings, death threats, physical attacks, they will refuse to look or acknowledge it.  Every normal response to abuse is converted into a psychiatric talking point no matter how blatantly obvious the situation is. LAPD even refused to acknowledge of take video of a girl trying to slice me up with a knife. They also took video of a person who intentionally unleashed a dog which could attack on que that they had shred my leg, stating the event never happened. Even though the video of a lot of this is on youtube.com or the internet for the world to see due to the fact they won’t write any police reports on my behalf on any level. Or at least the ones they do, they bury and modularize, so it is never looked at as ongoing daily attacks and situations of setups and frame jobs, and defamation of character.

That is the brilliance of suppressing self-defense. The target is abused with attacks until he asks questions, and then the questions are treated as symptoms.

The operation is premeditated, calculated, and designed to push the target to a specific psychological checkpoint: the moment of recognition. The perpetrators know that after enough gaslighting, privacy violations, threats, staged evidence, and staged provocations, any rational person will eventually begin asking what is happening. That moment is then weaponized. It becomes the scripted “proof” they were waiting for.

This is especially important because the campaign does not begin with the internet. It begins around 1977, long before ordinary public internet use. By the time the internet becomes publicly available in the 1990s, the underlying campaign is already decades old. The internet does not create the operation; it expands it. It gives the operation speed, reach, coordination, and the ability to broadcast defamatory narratives worldwide.

By 2001, when I begin to recognize the pattern and ask questions, the system has a new tool: internet-based communication. Suddenly, the act of asking questions can be broadcast and distorted instantly. Worldwide groups can be told, “He is crazy,” “He is paranoid,” “He thinks people are after him,” “He has guns,” “He is dangerous,” “He is involved with drugs,” or “He needs to be locked away.” But that does not happen by itself. Someone has to spread that narrative. Someone has to broadcast it. Someone has to coordinate the interpretation before the public ever hears my side. However when Jason Perelman wanted me to see the Internet in 1994, this is really when the defamation of character, and worldwide attacks, setups, frame jobs really got bad while I was at University of Colorado, Teachers, Classmates, Social Groups off of Internet Related Chat. It was always going on, all the way down to around 5 years old. And some of Jason Perelman’s friends he introduced me to, from University of Colorado, that he was friends with before he graduated, like Jason Baum, and Mike Wexler.

That is why the psychiatric label is fraudulent. It is not arising naturally from reality. It is being manufactured through fictional defamation of character. A false narrative is created, repeated, and distributed until people react to the narrative instead of the person. Example, Anita Perelman claims I hit the neighbor kid Josh Burnum in the head with a golf club, right around the time the movie Happy Gilmore came out when I was 16. However it wasn’t directed stated this way. She simply asked me if I had hit Josh Burnum in the head with a Golf Club to try to invoke a reaction, and say I conform to media. Obviously, this event never happened like all the other countless events.

The same pattern appears in the alleged attempts to plant or push drugs and weapons into the narrative around me. Whether through staged evidence, threats, privacy violations, psychological pressure, or LAPD-connected setups, the goal is the same: create a situation where I either remain silent and defenseless or speak up and get labeled. Both situations involve labeling to remove from society.

That is not concern,

That is not mental health.
That is not law enforcement.
That is not public safety.
That is a strategic operation.

That has nothing to do with wanting the person to have a good life, it is about what the obsessed psychotic wants for themselves.

The target is placed in an impossible position. If he says nothing, the abuse continues. If he speaks, his words are turned into evidence against him. If he asks for help, he is directed toward psychiatry. If he refuses the label, that refusal becomes part of the label. If he identifies the abuse, he is accused of paranoia or other changing psychological and criminal labels. If he identifies the people involved, he is accused of delusion.

This is why the operation is so dangerous. It does not merely attack the body, reputation, or legal status of the target. It attacks the target’s ability to explain reality with refusal to communicate to the target and victim such as myself what is even going on. Why they are so angry.

2001 at Signet-e Services with Michael Patrick Huntley is a perfect defining point of 50 years of my life. Mass angry mobs of anonymous strangers worldwide are mad at me since I was 5 years old, lashing out in anger and rage, but I’m not allowed to know what’s going on or why. While told I need to give coerce false confessions which are going to reinforce their lies and agenda to eradicate at all costs. Then stating well, he’s a violent paranoid schizophrenic, it’s not his fault, and we needed to help him by removing him from society. Or weird random statements that it’s because he’s weird or misunderstood. However when it comes to direct reasoning, on any of these vague statements, no one is actually capable of a factual argument based on specifics. Which explains why these changing statements are mimicked from anonymous stranger to stranger worldwide who I’ve never met. And refuse to admit they know of me while lashing out in anger and rage at me by design.

At its core, this is about hatred, profit, and control. The goal is not truth. The goal is not safety. The goal is not treatment. The goal is to push someone to the point of recognition, punish them for recognizing it, and then use the punishment to justify a larger political and financial machine.

It is a system of fictional defamation designed to let perpetrators get what they want while making the victim’s self-defense look like the problem.

That is the cruelty.
That is the strategy.
That is the trap.

I was born in 1972 on Castle Airforce base in Merced California

The Legal Backdrop: O’Connor, Roulet, Susan T., Guerrero, and Wendland

In O’Connor v. Donaldson (1975), the United States Supreme Court made clear that a state cannot constitutionally confine a person merely because of mental illness if that person is not dangerous and can survive safely in freedom. This case matters because it marked a movement away from arbitrary confinement based on empty labels.

The principle was simple: the government cannot lock someone away simply because officials, family members, neighbors, or institutions dislike them or consider them abnormal, weird, different, crazy, are afraid of them, misunderstood.

California also moved in a more rights-protective direction. In Conservatorship of Roulet (1979), the California Supreme Court strengthened due process protections in conservatorship proceedings. The state could not simply remove a person’s liberty based on weak proof or vague claims.

Later California cases, including Conservatorship of Susan T., Conservatorship of Guerrero, and Conservatorship of Wendland, further emphasized autonomy, evidentiary standards, and limits on forced control. These cases matter because they show a legal movement toward protecting people who are not violent, not dangerous, and not properly subject to confinement based on empty labels or even mental illness.

That legal movement represents progress. It recognizes that psychiatric labels can be abused. It recognizes that the state must be restrained. It recognizes that liberty cannot be destroyed by rumor, family pressure, police opinion, or courtroom convenience.

And that a Mental Illness labels can be synonyms with racial bigotry. Labeling others as different, and punishing for it over the label itself. The person is not being attacked and punished because they did anything wrong, they are being attacked and punished for the mere label put on them. Just like the color of someone’s skin.

Governor Gavin Newsom’s direction in California moves backward.

Newsom, the CARE Act, and California’s Regression

Governor Newsom’s CARE Act is not merely a past policy decision. It is an active and expanding system. It is currently pushing California backward from the due-process protections created by cases like O’Connor v. Donaldson, Conservatorship of Roulet, Conservatorship of Susan T., Conservatorship of Guerrero, and Conservatorship of Wendland. Instead of moving toward liberty, evidence, rehabilitation, and autonomy, California is moving toward broader state control, psychiatric labeling, court-ordered treatment, institutional supervision, and institutional profit.

The danger is not historical. It is happening now, and it is getting worse.

The CARE Act is presented as compassion. It is marketed as mental health reform, public safety, and help for vulnerable people. But in the wrong hands, it becomes a Trojan horse: a way to force people into court-controlled treatment pipelines based on labels, allegations, and state power.

The concern is not merely theoretical. In my case, the same machinery already exists: police labeling, prosecutorial exaggeration, defense attorney refusal, judicial cooperation, and public rumor campaigns. CARE Act-style systems give those same actors another pathway to achieve what they cannot prove through ordinary law.

Instead of proving a crime, they can imply illness.
Instead of proving danger, they can claim concern.
Instead of offering evidence, they can offer labels.
Instead of due process, they can offer “help.”

That is why Newsom’s direction is so dangerous. It reverses the humanity of O’Connor, Roulet, and other rights-protective cases. It moves back toward a world where the state can use psychiatric language to remove inconvenient people from society.

This pattern also proves something larger: California’s current political direction does not truly respect the legal principles behind the Supreme Court and California cases that restrict arbitrary psychiatric confinement. Those cases protect people who are not violent, not dangerous, and not properly subject to confinement based on empty labels. Newsom’s California moves in the opposite direction by creating new ways to pressure, label, process, and control people through courts and mental-health systems.

That reinforces the reason officials need to create the appearance of violence. If the target is not violent, then the state lacks the moral and legal justification to remove him. So the system manufactures danger. It creates staged narratives involving weapons, drugs, threats, instability, paranoia, schizophrenia, obsession, trauma, or public fear. It does this to bypass law and order and reach the desired result anyway.

That is not justice.
That is not treatment.
That is not public safety.
That is the crime underneath all the other crimes: manufacturing the justification to erase a person from society.

Just like Adolf Hitler himself

Why would California de-evolve in humanity unless there is another motive?

The obvious motives are power, money, political gain, institutional expansion, and control.

In my view, Newsom’s policies are not merely about helping people. They are about building a political kingdom of control. Good people, innocent people, poor people, traumatized people, disliked people, and scapegoated people can be sacrificed so politicians can claim they are solving homelessness, crime, public disorder, or mental illness.

That is not compassion. That is public relations wrapped around coercion.

Profit Over People: California Jails, Inmate Costs, and the Incentive to Cage

The financial incentive is enormous. California spends roughly around $133,000 per inmate per year. Even if the exact number varies by year or category, the point is the same: incarceration is a massive financial system. When 80 people are housed in one dorm, the amount of money attached to those bodies is staggering.

With that much money, California could provide real rehabilitation. It could teach web design, coding, electrical work, plumbing, automotive repair, construction, welding, digital media, business skills, accounting, logistics, and countless other trades. It could create structured environments where people leave jail or prison with actual tools to live lawful, productive lives.

Instead, the system provides little that is meaningful.

There are a few rehabilitation programs, but many are more appearance than substance. Some programs may shorten a sentence or create the impression of reform by offering basic GED-style education. But a GED in a hostile dorm environment is not the same as serious education. It does not provide hands-on trade skills. It does not build a career. It does not create dignity. It does not meaningfully prepare people to support themselves and give the means to those who thought they never had the opportunity to learn.

Real rehabilitation would require an environment designed for learning.
The current system is designed for containment.

Real rehabilitation would give people tools.
The current system gives people labels.

Real rehabilitation would reduce recidivism.
The current system profits when people come back.

That is the contradiction. If the state truly wanted fewer people in jail, it would invest heavily in skills, education, housing stability, mental health support, and reentry. Instead, the incentives point the other way. Keep people trapped. Keep people unskilled. Keep people labeled. Keep people cycling through courts, jails, probation, treatment programs, and institutional supervision.

Police then have an incentive to pad charges. A minor event can be inflated into something far more serious. A small infraction can become a narrative of danger. A person who jaywalks, argues, reacts, or appears inconvenient can be written into a much larger story. The longer the person is held, the more money flows through the system. I have witnessed it over and over. To others as well as with myself.

That is why I view the CARE Act, mental illness labeling, police scanner chatter, courtroom hearsay, and incarceration policy as part of the same structure. They are all packaged as safety or help, just as NSA surveillance is packaged as national security, COINTELPRO was packaged as protection, and Vault 7-style cyber power is packaged as intelligence capability.

The label says help.
The function is control.
The result is profit.

The Sham of Rehabilitation

California’s so-called rehabilitation programs reveal the fraud. If California can spend roughly six figures per inmate per year, there is no excuse for failing to teach real skills. For that amount of money, inmates could receive structured education, practical training, apprenticeships, technology access, and reentry support.

Instead, many are pushed deeper down the hole.

The system does not appear to want people to become healthy and independent. It appears to want them dependent, broken, labeled, and profitable. A person who learns a trade, gets a job, supports a family, builds a business, or becomes stable is no longer useful to the incarceration economy. A person who fails, relapses, violates probation, or gets arrested again is financially useful.

That is the moral inversion. The state claims to rehabilitate while benefiting from failure.

Legal and Ethical Violations against me

The conduct I describe implicates numerous legal and constitutional protections.

Relevant federal laws include:

18 U.S.C. § 241 — conspiracy against rights.
18 U.S.C. § 242 — deprivation of rights under color of law.

Potentially relevant California laws include:

California Penal Code § 646.9 — stalking.
California Penal Code § 422 — criminal threats.
California Penal Code § 182 — criminal conspiracy.
California Civil Code § 52.1, the Bane Act — interference with rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion.

Attorney conduct may implicate:

California Business and Professions Code § 6068 — duties of attorneys.
California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1 — competence.
Rule 1.3 — diligence.

Constitutional protections implicated include:

The First Amendment, protecting speech and expression.
The Fourth Amendment, protecting privacy and security against unreasonable intrusion.
The Sixth Amendment, protecting the right to counsel and a fair trial.
The Fourteenth Amendment, protecting due process and equal protection.

The overall picture is not law and order. It is law being inverted into a weapon.

The Role of Hate, Power, and Scapegoating

At the root of this campaign is hate. The message is that Kevin Perelman is inferior and therefore does not deserve the protection of law. That is why people can justify stalking, lying, provoking, gaslighting, labeling, and courtroom misconduct. They do not see the target as a full citizen.

This is also about scapegoating. A political system can use a target like me as an example. It can manufacture a crisis, create a label, claim intervention is necessary, and then use that story to justify new laws, new budgets, new powers, and new political capital.

In that sense, my life becomes a political tool. Destroy Kevin Perelman, make him look crazy or like it’s his personality or like it’s his fault, claim the system works, then use the manufactured example to justify CARE Act expansion, mental health courts, forced treatment, more funding, more police power, more judicial power, and more institutional control.

That is why this is bigger than one person. My case exposes a model.

Punishing Health and Productivity

One of the strongest proofs of malicious intent is the reaction to my attempts to improve. If I were truly the problem, then my becoming healthier, calmer, more productive, and more independent should reduce concern. But the opposite happens.

The more I try to live like everyone else, the more anger I see from family members, police, government actors, psychological authorities, and organized harassment groups. That means they are not responding to danger. They are responding to the failure of their narrative.

A healthy Kevin Perelman disproves the label.
A productive Kevin Perelman disproves the story.
A stable Kevin Perelman threatens the entire operation.

That is why they need provocation. They need reaction. They need stress. They need isolation. They need humiliation. They need to make life unlivable, then point to the effects of that abuse as proof that the abuse is justified.

This is circular cruelty.

Conclusion: The Only Real Defense Is Exposure

The dark genius of this system is its ability to make abuse look like concern. It makes surveillance look like safety. It makes coercion look like care. It makes legal abandonment look like procedure. It makes psychiatric labeling look like science. It makes profit look like rehabilitation. It makes hate look like public order.

But once the pattern is visible, the disguise begins to fail.

If the state has to provoke a person to make him look unstable, then the state has no real case.
If police have to fabricate or exaggerate, then the evidence is not there.
If prosecutors have to rely on hearsay and emotional coercion, then the facts are weak.
If defense attorneys refuse to defend, then the trial is not fair.
If judges ignore the misconduct, then the court is not neutral.
If mental health laws are used to bypass due process, then they are not compassion.
If incarceration money is not reinvested into real rehabilitation, then the system is not trying to solve crime. It is feeding on it.

The legal progress represented by O’Connor v. Donaldson, Conservatorship of Roulet, Conservatorship of Susan T., Conservatorship of Guerrero, and Conservatorship of Wendland must not be reversed by modern political opportunism. Those cases recognize that labels are dangerous when combined with government power. They recognize that liberty matters. They recognize that due process matters. They recognize that a human being cannot be erased by accusation alone.

California now stands at a crossroads. It can continue moving toward dignity, evidence, rehabilitation, autonomy, and rights — or it can regress into a system where psychiatric labels, police narratives, court coercion, and political profit decide who gets to remain free.

My case is a warning.

When a society allows one person to be dehumanized, stalked, labeled, silenced, and financially exploited, it creates the machinery to do the same to anyone. Especially with a WORLDWIDE operation across 49 years to eradicate at all costs investing insane amounts of government dollars over lack of a few eyebrow hairs or some 5 year old anxiety.

The only real defense is exposure: sunlight, documentation, legal accountability, public awareness, and a refusal to let “help” become the mask worn by hate, profit, and control.

Is this the Government You want in the LAND OF THE FREE? To take away all the FREEDOMS?

Only you can make this world safe for your children

We the people for the people, And anyone who supports this what is going on, IS NOT AMERICAN

Table of Contents (as bold headers)

1. Introduction: The Hate Cage & www.KevinPerelmanTarget.com
2. Childhood Targeting and the DSM-5 Labeling
3. Fabrication, Police & Community Complicity
4. Eradication Tactics, Brainwashing, and Global Mobbing
5. Gaslighting, Retaliation, and Threats
6. Social, Emotional, and Legal Isolation
7. Global Conspiracy: Watch Lists, Smear Campaigns, and Hate Cages
8. The Role of Family and Professional Jealousy
9. Privacy Violation and Psychological Warfare
10. Illegal Profiling and Mental Illness Labeling
11. Judicial Corruption and Systemic Retaliation
12. Police/Security Company Operations and Frame Jobs
13. Proven Public Defamation and Denial of Protection
14. Repetition of Abuse and Indifference
15. Civil Liberties Destroyed & Loss of Constitutional Rights
16. The Impact of Edward Snowden’s Revelations
17. Coordinated Stalking & Technology Abuse
18. Hate Groups, Vigilantes, and Public Execution
19. The Judicial System Hoax and Its True Motives
20. Worldwide Silence: What the Public Was Told
21. Spiritual and Emotional Aftermath
22. Conclusion: A Stark Warning—The True Danger of the Hate Cage

---

1. Introduction: The Hate Cage

 www.KevinPerelmanTarget.com

The Hate Cage

(United States Government, Police, Judicial System Eradication Operations with the Psychology Community – Riling the masses WORLDWIDE to hunt and kill or eradicate a 5-year-old child with MENTAL ILLNESS Cover-Up Labels and their ON-GOING operations)

(The Life Of Kevin Perelman and the Government, Police, Psychology Community with the masses worldwide, Stalking Operations, and his Family’s OBSESSED DELUSIONAL Hate and Rage against him)

Remember: NOTHING is unprovoked!

This person has exercised being a very stable, really well-grounded, open-minded, friendly person his entire life, and yet it didn’t matter in the eyes of the Government, Psychology Community or Judicial System hunting him with the masses helping them hunt 5-year-old children.

What happens when a family wants to throw their 5-year-old in the trash because he’s not PERFECT, with lack of eyebrow hair, based on the DSM-5 book of psychological labeling?

So they need to remove him from society by making up lies with the Police, Psychology Community, and Government, with the masses to get away with it.

What methods are used to remove that child from the WORLD in ways that make it look like it’s the child’s fault, and try to BRAINWASH him into thinking it’s his fault and he suffers from mental illness, to cover up the original Psychological labels in 1977 as well, to cover up the fact that the entire situation is driven out of pure HATE, FEAR, RAGE, and inability to understand anything different than themselves because that child was not what they wanted, or is exercising the ability to think for himself, showing the same ANGER, HATE, FEAR, that Adolf Hitler himself had towards the Jewish people.

There cannot, on any level, no matter what, be an admission that the original labeling about obsession, anger, schizophrenia, were all bunk labels and lies. He is met with unfathomable retaliation for even trying to address their concerns. That simply is not true or is based on someone else’s projection onto Kevin Perelman.

Using lies and fabrications with the Police, Government, and Psychology Community, while that family and those helping, project themselves on that child, fabricating such lies that the child is filled with Rage, and is a Violent Paranoid Schizophrenic to REMOVE HIM FROM SOCIETY with clear and obvious MOTIVE. Saying what they need to say, to get what they want (The Common Hardened Criminal), and blasting these lies WORLDWIDE with the Police, Government, Security Companies, Judicial System, Psychology Community, Communities, in an agenda to ERADICATE at all costs. In a mass global mobbing based on United States community network terror cells across the Internet starting in 1994 against a single child for 54 years.

No matter how many times, attempts by Kevin Perelman are made by anyone, whether it be the family, the police, the psychology community, the mass worldwide angry, enraged mobs, there is not only lack of communication, but flat out anger and rage for asking the question, “What is going on?”, “Why won’t you stop?”, “Why are you so mad at me?”

The reactions are met with Death Threats, Laughs, Snickers, and masked hostility that you’re imagining the daily instigation, privacy violations, and attacks to create the appearance of mental instability. Not concern.

In 2001, Michael Patrick Huntley, one of the ringleaders since Kevin was 14 years old, upon finding out, was asked this question: “Mike, what the hell is going on?” And the response with pure HATE and RAGE with Paul Humphrey, another stalking friend who worked with LAPD in 1998, in these stalking operations was,

“I’ve given you enough rope to hang yourself with,”
“We are using the Judicial System Against you,”
“You had better live a careful life,”
“You are too out of control for California,”
“World of Paranoia,”
“It’s your behavior.”

Indirect threats and messages about defaming his name to the largest circles possible in movie reference lines.

And placing papers in front of him on his office desk at Signet-e Services, the company Mike Huntley wanted to start with him, talking about control and killing in South Korea by their Government.

At the same time, Mike Huntley was working with LAPD and Kevin’s Gym manager to try to get Kevin to take a trash bag of LAPD confiscated Marijuana with LAPD, as setup and frame jobs to lock him away out of hate trying to frame him as a drug dealer with LAPD and Ron Perelman.

This was the turning point in Kevin Perelman’s life, coming out of college with passion and inspiration while working for visual FX studios with his College Background in Art, Computers, Programming, while Michael Patrick Huntley wanted to start an Internet Host Provider, called Signet-e Services.

This is the point where his life changed, noticing the Psychology Community and Police were being given fabricated Psychological labels before ever having any contact with them or the majority of most interactions, whether it be the scared or enraged looks on their faces. But at no point is Kevin Perelman ever allowed to have an honest dialogue with any of these people about the situation and how it started and escalated like wildfire.

Showing clear and obvious motive to eradicate, and not resolve the situation, with nonstop emotional blackmail and illegal arrests, forged fraudulent police reports made from person after person while trying to instigate nonstop from place to place to create a forged and fraudulent cover-up paper trail of instability and mental illness, so that there is no investigation into what had happened to Kevin Perelman once he disappeared.

What happens to that child’s life as he grows up, not knowing he is targeted for ERADICATION/ASSASSINATION, with a conspiring planet of fear-mongered anonymous strangers trying to PROVOKE him to death or make it look like he is chasing or obsessed with people, with Police and Government setup and frame job operations that go on daily for 53 years, with no admission that this WORLDWIDE event is occurring?

Meanwhile, he walks around in isolation watching his own Government and family, with the masses, HUNT and TERRORIZE him for no reason other than their HATE and RAGE for imperfection since he was 5 years old (1977), while he is told he has to give coerced false confessions if he wants to live the same life as everyone else.

What happens to that 29-year-old when he finds out something is very wrong with his life, that he didn’t know was going on?

When his friends aren’t really his friends, but rather his jailers, involved in a mass WORLDWIDE conspiracy to eradicate at all costs with MENTAL ILLNESS label COVER-UPS?

And wherever he goes, strangers want him dead for no reason, and he’s not allowed to say anything about it or especially ask any questions, or his life will be threatened even more with increasing WORLDWIDE Mental Illness attacks as they try to create the appearance of Anxiety or some kind of rare unheard of mental illness.

Larger and larger groups hunt him to kill or eradicate him with the POLICE, escalating the rate simply because he wants to know the truth and have the same life as everyone else, the life he thought he had.

Paid-off thug police officers like Lead Officer Charles Sean Dinse of the Topanga Division are actively stalking alongside these WORLDWIDE indoctrinated STALKING mobs, in a quest to FORCE people into mental facilities out of their own HATE and INSECURITY, in a coordinated WORLDWIDE operation from which Kevin can’t get away.

No matter how much proof—on video or otherwise—is shown to them, they refuse to look. No matter how obvious, they refuse to acknowledge reality, instead taking part in the verbal provocations and harassments to try to create a false perception of mental illness and instability.

Kevin found that his life was simply a fake cloak of WORLDWIDE insecurity, hostility, fear, and PURE HATRED for him, while he accepts everyone with open arms. He helps everyone in his path, driven by his passions for capitalistic ideals, education, and his background, striving to accomplish wonderful endeavors based on originality, creativity, and innovation—providing a good life for himself while helping those around him, just like most people who strive to achieve. This makes his family and the government enraged.

Coming to the realization that almost every stranger he has met since he was 5 years old is involved in a mass WORLDWIDE conspiracy, fueled by the first 24 years of fabrications and lies spewed across the entire United States of America and world, upon finding out in 2001.

It is based on illegal government MENTAL ILLNESS WATCH LISTS, internet-based propaganda, smear campaigns, whisper campaigns, and the use of the Internet to coordinate out-of-context information to the masses—basically “KILL systems”—to indirectly and without physical touch deteriorate someone’s health until they no longer exist or are put in a HATE CAGE (jail cell or mental facility). It is designed to EXTERMINATE at all costs by riling the masses against him in secret, without the target ever being allowed to know what he is even accused of or why he’s being HUNTED, or to tell his side of the story based on fabricated accusations.

Exactly as Michael Patrick Huntley’s Death Threats stated—“World of Paranoia”—with statements from his father Ronald Perelman and Mike Huntley like, “You are not allowed to defend yourself.” At no point is he directly told what these imaginary crimes are.

The family, police, and psychology community do this to create the illusion of obsessional looping, schizophrenia, paranoia, and to change labels—whether criminal or psychological and nonstop setup and frame jobs with the masses and Police to lock him away for no real reason—while the target keeps wondering why they won’t stop attacking him and leave him alone, or address their real concerns, which amount to nothing more than a lack of eyebrow hair and a quest to design perfect human beings, like Adolf Hitler.

The message is: Kevin is the inferior race, and everyone else stalking him, especially the authority figures, are the superior race, while cloaking their bigoted hate and rage behind laughs, snickering, and calling it teases.

This is by DESIGN—by the PSYCHOLOGY COMMUNITY, POLICE, and GOVERNMENT—to execute or eradicate, using PSYCHOLOGY as a weapon.

With endless psychological warfare tactics based on Internet and non-Internet privacy violations, uniting mass angry mobs across the internet to conspire and coordinate disinformation.

They are told to wait, follow, or create nonstop patterned terror behaviors to instigate and try to get reactions from the target—creating fraudulent and forged paper trails with the police to cover up their mass crime spree.

Also known as Gang Stalking or Gaslighting.

The communities are left with one verbal and non-verbal message: “We are going to hunt you to KILL or ERADICATE you, and you don’t talk or we will HUNT you and KILL you or ERADICATE you.” They are STOPPING him from having the same life as everyone else.

(An Execution by the Public.)

Showing that this person, since age 5, was never even classified as a human being.

His constitutional rights and protections were stolen from him based on government PROFILING and he was treated from day one like a monster—who never did anything wrong. Not that a 5-year-old really could.

At no point was he ever protected by the Constitution of the United States of America.

This shows that what the government has always told people about FREEDOMS and DEMOCRACY is a blatant lie—to make them feel secure, even though they are not safe from them.

This is the very SECRET they don’t want anyone talking about, so that their country believes in them instead of QUESTIONING what is going on behind the closed doors of Congress, the Senate, the White House, and government agencies like the National Security Agency (NSA), and what they truly do that isn’t on the news—in this tight-knit power structure driven by special interest groups, money, and control.

The people flock like sheep, listening to drama on the news about trivial things that don’t matter, but never focus on the things that actually do—especially when it comes to people’s rights, safety, and basic dignity, which so often becomes their entertainment, while the U.S. government, police, psychology community, and security companies are committing acts beyond any level of illegality and criminality known to man.

Hypocritically, the system babbles about how “the end justifies the means.”

What happens when this person, hunted by the police and these hate groups that are indoctrinated into their eradication cults, can piece enough of his life together and finally forms an opinion about the WORLDWIDE lies used to fear-monger the masses against him in a global eradication agenda?

What happens when it’s made to look like a harmless, systematic, repetitive billions of worldwide “teases” per day—in secret and non-direct ways—to create the appearance of paranoia and schizophrenia by these paranoid psychotics, given “kill tools” by the government to eliminate him?

They try to justify what they are doing by some kind of sick “shock collar” behavior modification, always refusing to confront their own psychotic and criminal behaviors.

The United States government is using psychology as a weapon to hunt, kill, or eradicate—Adolf Hitler’s next level of warfare, trickling down to the KKK and adopted by the police, security companies, and neighborhood watch groups.

These communities preach peaceful neighborhoods while, together with the police, they stalk, hunt, and kill the good people they don’t like, or are simply afraid of—creating a war zone of chaos and criminal behavior, then blaming it all on the target/victim with the judicial system’s hate, while profiling them to justify their crime spree.

Also known as gaslighting, gang stalking, community harassment groups, or cause stalking.

In all of these, the police and their political allies are behind it, covering it up by accusing the very victim they are hunting—working to kill or force into cages, for no legitimate reason, entirely by design.

Their real statement is simply that they don’t care about Kevin’s life, and nobody wants to know the truth—while they run a worldwide, minute-by-minute obsessed stalking operation to eradicate him, based on thousands of defamatory fabrications and daily gaslighting tactics.

They are obsessed and can’t let go, all while claiming they don’t care. Obviously, they care deeply, are angry about something, and have been hunting and stalking him since he was five years old, refusing to stop until he is dead or gone for no real reason—other than protecting the secrets of what they started in 1977.

They pretend what they are doing is just teasing or a game: methods to kill, and get away with it, without an investigation.

This is designed to kill a five-year-old, in these methods, by the government of the United States of America and by the psychology community.

Since no one worldwide is coming forward with honesty, it proves that what they are really doing is hunting and attempting to kill a person in an unheard-of coordinated method.

The only question left is, “What were the people across the United States and the world told, and how did the United States government do this—uniting the majority of the planet, led by depraved people, in the name of control, or supporters who’ll hunt and kill for them out of hate?”

This is something that will be analyzed for centuries to come, based on social dynamics, once the truth is out.

This is what fuels the police, psychology community, security companies, and the worldwide terror and stalking network of vigilantes, all helping in this sick cause to kill or eradicate a five-year-old Jewish person based on random statements like, “He scares me,” even though they have never met him.

These are empty, racist, bigoted judgments from day one, and especially with the judicial system and government, directed toward a five-year-old.

---

10. Illegal Profiling and Mental Illness Labeling
(Section label inserted only; content below remains intact.)

Illegal Monitoring of Children, Police Profiling, and Lifelong Surveillance

• ILLEGAL profiling and UNETHICAL FAMILY labeling by a psychotic and jealous art therapist mother and a father with an additional psychology degree, both taking out their anger and rage on a child instead of embracing art and creativity from others. Enraged with jealousy at every piece of artwork created by Kevin Perelman. Working with the police to make it appear as if Kevin is conforming to media or confessing to something, driven by PURE HATE and RAGE to eradicate someone and get away with it. Normally, people wouldn’t care about art in this negative way—like Adolf Hitler killing for reading books and enjoying it.

• Trying to make the target look like he’s conforming to media, people, or is schizophrenic.

• Privacy violation in unheard-of ways, both on and off the internet, with conspiracy worldwide groups of anonymous strangers collecting and using this data with these groups to stalk.

• Using citizens to hunt, kill, or eradicate those they don’t like, hiding behind security companies, so when the targets go to the police, the police protect their stalking groups through Block Commanders and Neighborhood Watch groups, empowering these vigilante hate armies to stalk. Anything out of the norm or not to their liking is deemed “crazy” or needing eradication. Example: “He took a walk at night. I’m afraid of him. He needs to be removed from society.”

• ILLEGAL mental illness watch lists, notifying communities of their theories, fearmongering, and riling the masses against the target.

• ILLEGAL computer and cell phone hacking and privacy violations, using NSA resources to violate Internet privacy and use the information for paranoid schizophrenia tactics by hinting about everything the target does, trying to make it appear as if he suffers from mental illness. Example: if you type something odd into Google, like “Yellow Beetle,” your computer neighbors might walk up to you when you go out and say, “I like VW’s too,” and this is done over and over daily as you test the waters. It’s a form of psychological warfare to eradicate—by making the victim appear paranoid or schizophrenic—while they use Brian Longbotham SPY GAME tactics (Brian hired Kevin to work at Universal Studios on a pilot called “Spy Game”), or ideas of reference hinting about everything you do. And of course, it’s never directly stated, while they tell you they don’t know who you are, especially if they’re working with the LAPD Neighborhood Watch, Block Commanders, who are reporting back to the lead officers. This shows it’s not mental illness but the use of psychology as a weapon to eradicate at all costs out of hate.

• Illegal psychological labeling in the police systems—categorization.

• Police using their global systems to defame and discredit across the United States. For example, the LAPD has been broadcasting on their computer system that Kevin Perelman is a public nuisance—PROVEN!—and countless other fabricated accusations to cover up their crime spree against him. So when he needs to report a crime against himself anywhere in the United States, they refuse to protect and serve. Each local police department, no matter where he is, works with these citizen kill groups to hunt and eradicate him anywhere in the United States.

• Police refusal to stop crimes against the target or offer help if they don’t like the target—along with Internal Affairs. It doesn’t matter how much video footage is provided to them, photos and videos. A girl tries to slice Kevin up with a knife, someone with a police-trained K9 shreds his leg, while they write penal code 187 on his car with a girl named Victoria Walker, and criminal defense attorney Michael Bialys sent after him with his Visual FX supervisor Brian Longbotham, while he was suing Modern Video Film for breach of contract. These people befriend Kevin only for extremely large entities with unlimited money to take part in hunting and stalking him for no reason.

• Illegal trials and judicial operations, making sure the target can’t prove innocence in courtrooms no matter how much direct proof exists—with paid-off judges, or judges who all want these crimes covered up so that what was started when he was five years old by the judicial system, police, and government, never comes out in public.

• Government and police retaliation and stalking for getting proof of the crimes against him. In 2013 at Encino Starbucks, Kevin was approached by a police officer named Officer Toro who threatened his life for having proof of their angry mobs hunting him to kill or eradicate him. This death threat—which leads officer Charles Sean Dinse of LAPD is actively carrying out—was, “If you ever take a picture of a person, I will exercise the law in my own way.” Van Nuys Courthouse on three illegal trials is protecting these operations through Internal Affairs. These are government and United States-based assassinations, with operations going all the way to the top. These aren’t just local, psychotic police officers torturing and killing young children for 49 years with mental illness labeling cover-ups; these are government assassination operations. Since this has been happening since 1977 for Kevin, it has grown exponentially due to more LAPD death threats, the more Kevin found out and had an opinion or tried to get help.

• Illegal gaslighting operations—psychological terror and torture operations based on privacy violations, to send people schizophrenia messages called “ideas of reference.” It is the equivalent of mental rape. In other words, they are violating privacy (as in the VW example above). And when the target expresses discomfort and asks them to stop, but they tell the target “NO”—like with the dog attacker and the police-trained K9, Detective Ruiz, Detective Shapiro, Detective Angela Stuart, lead officer Sean Dinse, all told to threaten Kevin’s life and stalk him both locally and worldwide with networked terror cells. Doesn’t “NO” mean no? When the target doesn’t want privacy violations and psychotic hints—“I know you did this, I know you did that, I know you went here.” Direct threats like “It’s your transgressions”; “You know what you did”; “You had better accept what’s going on or it will get a lot worse for you” and countless others. The LAPD and dog attackers’ death threats while shredding his leg: “Previously stated by him, you had better accept what’s going on or it will get a lot worse for you,” showing they are hunting to kill using Adolf Hitler’s psychological warfare tactics.

As Kevin possesses over 80 terabytes of photo, video, and much more for the world to see. LAPD has threatened Kevin’s life over and over for getting proof of their murder operations to kill five-year-old Jewish children. If someone doesn’t like someone, they ask them to leave them alone. If they say no, and worldwide groups are stalking, harassing, and provoking Kevin since he was five—finding out at 29—the message is clear. This message is from the Police, the Judicial System, Kevin’s Family, the Psychology Community, United Worldwide Security Companies, and a planet of vigilante civilians helping hunt to kill or eradicate a five-year-old Jewish child who has spent 25 years asking what is going on since 2001. And the only consistent response is, “YOU DON’T TALK OR WE KILL YOU” in various forms while stalking has continued since age five.

If they don’t stop, they try to prvoke nonstop, and collect reactions to set up and frame the target and victim, Kevin Perelman to exterminate by turning around the situation on the victim. The Judicial System lies about it, saying Kevin is imagining things—especially with Lead Officer Charles Sean Dinse. They will not admit evidence, no matter how obvious, and how much proof there is. The Judicial Employees even prvoke and instigate with the same tactics trying to get reactions within the courtroom or courthouse as frame job operations while, showing they are involved and know what’s going on. Just like trying to file police reports which they water down and suppress to stop a paper trail of honesty from happening.

This shows that several of these authority figures are probably getting paid to hunt and kill or eradicate, by trying to mentally rape someone into reactions and covering it up by claiming the person suffers from mental illness, especially someone with a history of the opposite: college educated, visual FX artist for Hollywood (Modern Video Film, Universal Studios), IT computer networking from server builds, RAID arrays, internet security, firewalling, web development like .Net, Transact SQL programming, graphics design, operating systems (Linux, Windows), mail servers (Nginx, Apache, Ubuntu, Microsoft, and a lot more).

There is nothing close to mental illness other than at age 29, meeting the LAPD, psychology community, family, and judicial death threats, with business partner Mike Patrick Huntley, paid off to hunt, kill, or eradicate Kevin starting at age 14, with Paul Humphrey, who joined LAPD in 1988—brother of Joe Humphrey—linked to Jason Perelman and Jennifer Pilchick Perelman. While they with Gym Manager Rodie Morales was trying to get me to take a trash bag of police confiscated marijuana to frame me as a drug dealer.

To whose PERCEPTION? (Michael Patrick Huntley and Anita Perelman: “It’s your behavior”)

The Police, Government, Judicial System, Psychology Community, Security Companies, and these mass vigilante civilian groups try to cover all of this up and sweep it under the rug with mental illness labeling so that there are no loose ends on this execution, or on an investigation of an unprecedented scale and unheard-of crime against a single person across 54 years.

This is still going on as we speak. The Judicial System will not allow any aspect of the TRUTH to come to light about Kevin Perelman, with mass ongoing attacks designed to create the appearance of instability—to make Kevin look “crazy” for some reason—because they don’t want to be known for what they really are and what they are doing to people based on profiling.

They don’t want United States citizens knowing what they are capable of doing to their own people out of their paranoia, control issues, fear, and insecurity—things that Edward Snowden exposed with the NSA.

Good people are DYING or DISAPPEARING because of these government and police stalking operations. They end up homeless, on the streets trying to survive while being stalked, swept up, and forced into jails, prisons, and mental facilities—falling through the cracks.

It is made to appear that it’s about incurable mental illnesses that put them in these hate cages for life, but these operations are BY DESIGN, created by the United States Government for whistleblowers, for people who are too smart or who think for themselves, for those who discover long-standing government investigations on them and who have no constitutional protections, and for people who dare to question aspects of our government.

COINTELPRO (short for Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of secret FBI operations run mainly from 1956 to 1971 aimed at monitoring, infiltrating, disrupting, and discrediting domestic political organizations the FBI viewed as “subversive.”

It targeted a wide range of groups—most famously civil rights organizations (including Martin Luther King Jr.), Black liberation groups (like the Black Panther Party), anti–Vietnam War activists, socialists/communists, and some white supremacist groups too. Tactics included surveillance, informants, spreading rumors and forged letters, provoking internal conflict, harassment via employers/landlords, and coordination that could lead to arrests or public smears.

The program became publicly known after activists burglarized an FBI office in 1971 and leaked documents; later investigations (notably the Church Committee in the mid-1970s) condemned it as abusive and unconstitutional in many instances.

It’s covered up by mental illness labeling to make it seem like it was the victim’s fault. When in fact, if these stalking groups operating with police were not happening, these people—like Kevin Perelman—would have very successful lives.

Kevin Perelman is living proof of what Edward Snowden exposed, but on a much more demented level with the psychology community.

These are government flag-and-kill operations based on profiling. Edward Snowden sacrificed his freedoms for the public—and most people don’t even understand its importance or what they’re involved in. Or they’re too consumed in their own guilt to come forward and admit it’s going on, and that they screwed up; they’re unwilling to expose and stop what needs to be stopped for the good of humanity.

They are EMPOWERING the government and police to continue and ramp up for the next wave of technology, making things a billion times worse for U.S. citizens, freedoms, and safety.

And when the police empower these civilian kill groups to hunt, they’re ENDANGERING ALL lives—even though Kevin Perelman is the main target of a GLOBAL WORLDWIDE MURDER operation.

These coordinated stalking groups, with the police using the Internet, Wifi Hacking, Computer Hacking, GPS, cell phone tracking, and neighborhood coordination to collect and distribute private information from the target to the masses wherever he goes, are reinforcing the destruction of any aspect of the Constitution of the United States of America and the foundation that holds everyone together. The ONLY THING keeping people safe from the tyranny of their own government by doing what the government is telling them to take part in.

“Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”

Why is one person exposing this 49-year crime spree such a threat? Because that information threatens the tyrants who don’t want to lose control of their reckless endangerment to the people—people just trying to get food on the table and shelter over their heads.

YOU ARE NOT SAFE from the United States Government! YOU ARE NOT PROTECTED by the United States Government!

If people don’t speak out about Kevin Perelman, and demand proper checks and balances for their own safety, they are asking for it to get worse for themselves. And when they finally find out—just like Edward Snowden said—it will be way too late, and Kevin’s life is the perfect example.

While this is not an absolute opinion, the Judicial System is a hoax and is does not seem to be meant to protect people anymore.

While there is no simple solution to a complex problem, In Kevin’s experience, and maybe because it is the definition of his life, they seem to be more interested in their own personal agendas, and making money off of people while piling on fake fraudulent charges and threatening lives, warning that people had better not tell anyone while they hunt and stalk with these illegal operations. Good people’s lives are being destroyed over hate, greed, insecurity, and fear, while they steal tax-paying dollars and do it more from incentive.

And when these people—connected at the highest levels of authority—befriend Kevin and enter his life, extremely large entities with unlimited money take part in hunting and stalking him for no real reason other then the fear of a young child pulling some eyebrow hairs. Illegal trials and judicial operations are held to make sure Kevin can’t prove innocence in courtrooms, no matter how much direct proof exists, with paid-off judges or judges who all want these crimes covered up—ensuring that what was started when Kevin was five years old, by the judicial system, police, and government, never gets out in the open and to the people.

Police refusal to stop crimes against Kevin or to help him, if they don’t like him, and with Internal Affairs, means it doesn’t matter how much video footage, photos, or proof is provided. A girl trying to slice Kevin up with a knife, a person with a police-trained K9 shredding his leg, someone writing Penal Code 187 on his car with a girl named Victoria Walker, and her boyfriend criminal defense attorney Michael Bialys sent after him with his Visual FX supervisor Brian Longbotham, all while he was suing Modern Video Film for breach of contract.

Also involved: corporations such as Universal Studios, property owner Rick Caruso, and Brian Longbotham, all heavily involved in these stalking’s, the City of Thousand Oaks Civic Center, and many other large corporations in frame-job operations with the LAPD and worldwide anonymous strangers who think they know him.

Police broadcast defamatory information using their global systems to defame and discredit Kevin across the United States. For example, the LAPD has been blasting on the police computer system that Kevin Perelman is a public nuisance—PROVEN!—and they have spread countless other defamatory statements to cover up their crime spree against him, so when he reports a crime against himself anywhere, the authorities refuse to protect or serve.

Each local police department, no matter where Kevin is, works with these citizen kill groups to hunt and kill or eradicate him anywhere in the United States. Their only real message is that they don’t care about his life, and nobody wants to know about the truth, even while they run a worldwide, daily, minute-by-minute obsessed stalking operation to eradicate him at all costs—based on thousands of defamatory fabrications and daily gaslighting tactics.

In reality, they are obsessed with him and can’t let go, while publicly claiming not to care. Obviously they do care, and they are angry about something—having hunted and stalked him since he was five years old, refusing to stop until he is dead or gone for no reason other than the secret and labeling they started in 1977. They pretend what they are doing is just teasing or a game—methods to kill and get away with it, without an investigation. Deliberately designed to kill a five-year-old in these methods, by the U.S. Government and psychology community.

Because no one worldwide is coming forward with honesty, it proves that what they are doing is to hunt and kill—using an unheard-of, coordinated method. Now the only question is, what were people across the United States and the world told, and how did the United States government do this—uniting most of the planet, led by depraved people, in the name of control or as supporters, to hunt and kill for them out of hate? This is something that will be analyzed for centuries to come, based on social dynamics, once the truth is out.

This is what fuels the police, psychology community, security companies, and the worldwide terror and stalking network of vigilantes who all help with this sick cause to kill or eradicate a five-year-old Jewish person based solely on random statements like “He scares me,” even though they’ve never met him. These are empty, racist, bigoted judgments from day one—and especially with the judicial system and government—used against a five-year-old.

Because no one worldwide is coming forward with honesty, it proves that what they are doing is to hunt and kill—using an unheard-of, coordinated method. Now the only question is, what were people across the United States and the world told, and how did the United States government do this—uniting most of the planet, led by depraved people, in the name of control or as supporters, to hunt and kill for them out of hate? This is something that will be analyzed for centuries to come, based on social dynamics, once the truth is out.

This is what fuels the police, psychology community, security companies, and the worldwide terror and stalking network of vigilantes who all help with this sick cause to kill or eradicate a five-year-old Jewish person based solely on random statements like “He scares me,” even though they’ve never met him. These are empty, racist, bigoted judgments from day one—and especially with the judicial system and government and psychology community—used against a five-year-old.

Illegal monitoring of children, police profiling, and surveillance means that everything Kevin did was watched and collected. There was and is illegal profiling and unethical family labeling from a psychotic and jealous art therapist mother and a father with a secondary psychology degree. His mother took out her anger and rage on her child, instead of embracing art and creativity, enraged with jealousy at every piece of artwork Kevin Perelman made still going on today with the masses. Working with the police to make Kevin appear as though he was confessing to something, all was done from pure hate and rage, seeking to eradicate him and get away with it. Yet to this day, he is met with the same hate and rage from art to pretty much anything else he does. Normally, people couldn’t care less about art in this negative way—just like Adolf Hitler killed for reading books that weren’t government-approved.

They attempted to make Kevin appear as if he conformed to media, other people, or as if he were schizophrenic. The privacy violations were done in unheard-of ways, both on and off the Internet, with worldwide groups of anonymous strangers, collecting and distributing data, using these groups to stalk.

Citizens are used as hunters, killers, or “eradication officers,” hiding behind security companies. If the targeted person went to the police for help, the police will protect their own stalking groups, with Block Commanders and Neighborhood Watch groups empowering these vigilante hate armies to stalk. Anything out of the norm, or simply not to their liking, is deemed crazy or needing eradication. For example: “He took a walk at night, I’m afraid of him”—so, he needs to be removed from society.

There were and still are illegal trials and judicial operations designed to ensure the target can’t prove innocence in courtrooms or anywhere else, no matter how much direct proof existed—using paid-off judges or judges who wanted these crimes covered up, so what was started when Kevin was five years old by the judicial system, police, and government would never become public.

There is nonstop, ongoing government and police retaliation and stalking for getting proof of the crimes against Kevin. In 2013 at Encino Starbucks, Kevin was approached by a police officer known as Officer Toro, who threatened his life for having proof of their angry mobs hunting him to kill or eradicate him. This death threat—which lead officer Charles Sean Dinse of LAPD is actively carrying out—was: “If you ever take a picture of a person, I will exercise the law in my own way.” At Van Nuys Courthouse, during three illegal trials, authorities protected these illegal operations with Internal Affairs. These are government and United States–based assassination operations, going all the way to the top. These aren’t just local psychotic police officers who get their jollies torturing and killing young children over 49 years with mental illness labeling cover-ups; these are government assassination operations. Since this has been going on since 1977 for Kevin, it has grown exponentially due to the LAPD death threats that escalated as he found out more and demanded answers amongst the mass mobbing’s or tried to get help to stop what still persists.

There were and are illegal gaslighting operations—psychological terror and torture based on privacy violations, sending people schizophrenic messages called “ideas of reference.” It is the equivalent of mental rape. In other words, they are violating privacy (as in the VW example). And when the target expresses the desire for it to stop, they respond “NO”—like with the dog attacker and the police-trained K9, Detective Ruiz, Detective Shapiro, Detective Angela Stuart, and lead officer Sean Dinse with many others, who all threatened Kevin’s life and are stalking him both locally and through worldwide terror cells. Doesn’t “NO” mean NO? The target expresses dislike of the privacy violations and psychotic hints—“I know you did this. I know you did that. I know you went here.” They send direct threats: “It’s your transgressions.” “You know what you did.” “You had better accept what’s going on or it will get a lot worse for you,” and countless others.

The LAPD and dog attackers’ death threats while shredding Kevin’s leg—“You had better accept what’s going on or it will get a lot worse for you”—show the use of Adolf Hitler psychological warfare tactics by LAPD. Kevin possesses over 80 terabytes of photo, video, and other documentary evidence for the world to see. LAPD has threatened his life repeatedly for accumulating evidence of their daily attacks to kill five-year-old Jewish children. If someone dislikes someone, they ask them to leave them alone. If they refuse, and worldwide stalking, harassing, and provoking has been happening since age five, only realizing it at age 29, then the message is clear. This message comes from the Police, Judicial System, Family, Psychology Community, Worldwide Security Companies, and a planet of vigilante civilians helping to hunt, kill, or eradicate a five-year-old Jewish child who has spent 25 years asking what is going on. The only consistent response: “YOU DON’T TALK OR WE KILL YOU,” while stalking continues since age five. And if they don’t stop, they’re simply trying to provoke reactions, to set up and frame to exterminate—by turning around the situation on the victim and target.

The Judicial System lies, saying Kevin is imagining things, with assistance from Lead Officer Charles Sean Dinse. This shows that several of these authority figures are probably getting paid to hunt and kill or eradicate, trying to mentally rape someone into reactions and cover it up by claiming the victim suffers from mental illness and is violent, and crazy, and claims of being unpredictable to the people as to what he might do. Especially when the person has a history of the opposite—college-educated, visual FX artist for Hollywood (Modern Video Film, Universal Studios), IT computer networking (server builds, RAID arrays, internet security, firewalling, web development like .Net, Transact SQL programming, graphics design, operating systems like Linux, Windows, mail servers Nginx, Apache, Ubuntu, Microsoft—you name it). There is nothing close to mental illness except at age 29, when the LAPD, psychology community, family, and judicial system began death threats, with business partner Michael Patrick Huntley paid off to hunt, kill, or eradicate starting at age 14, joined by Paul Humphrey, who joined LAPD in 1998, younger brother of Joe Humphrey, linked to Jason Perelman and Jennifer Pilchick Perelman.

To whose perception? (Michael Patrick Huntley and Anita Perelman: “It’s your behavior.”)

The Police, Government, Judicial System, Psychology Community, Security Companies, and these mass vigilante civilian groups try to cover all this up and sweep it under the rug with mental illness labeling so there are no loose ends on this execution, or an investigation of an unprecedented scale and unheard-of crime against a single person who is now 54 years old. This is still going on as we speak. The Judicial System will not allow any aspect of the truth to come to light regarding Kevin Perelman, with their ongoing mass attacks designed to create the appearance of instability and to make Kevin seem crazy for some reason. They do not want to be known for what they really are and what they are doing to people based on profiling. They do not want United States citizens to know what they are capable of doing to their own people out of their paranoia, control issues, fear, and insecurity—problems that Edward Snowden exposed with the NSA.

Good people are dying or disappearing because of these government and police stalking operations. They end up homeless, on the streets trying to survive while being stalked, swept up, and forced into jails, prisons, or mental facilities—falling through the cracks—and it is made to appear that it’s all about incurable mental illnesses that put them in these hate cages for life. These operations are by design, created by the United States Government for whistleblowers, for people who are too smart and think for themselves, or who discover they have a decades-long investigation on them and have no constitutional protections. This is for people who dare to question aspects of our government. It’s all covered up by mental illness labeling to make it appear that it was the victim’s fault. When, in fact, if these stalking groups working with the police weren’t happening, these people—like Kevin Perelman—would have very successful lives.

Kevin Perelman is living proof of what Edward Snowden exposed, but on a much more demented level with the psychology community.

These are government flag-and-kill operations based on profiling. Edward Snowden sacrificed his freedoms for us and most people don’t even understand its importance or the depth of their own involvement. Or they are too consumed by their own guilt to come forward and admit what’s going on, that they screwed up and need to expose and stop what needs to be stopped for the good of humanity. Instead, they are empowering the government and police to continue and ramp things up for the next wave of technology to make things a billion times worse for United States citizens, for freedoms, and for safety. When the police empower these civilian kill groups to hunt, they are endangering all lives, even though Kevin Perelman is the main target of a global, worldwide murder operation.

Coordinated stalking groups, with the police using the Internet, GPS, cell phone tracking, neighborhood coordination to collect and distribute private information from authority figures, all reinforce the destruction of the Constitution of the United States of America and the very foundation that holds everyone together—the only thing that keeps all of us safe from the tyranny of our own government.

“Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”

Why is one person exposing this 49-year crime spree against him such a threat? Because that information threatens the tyrants who don’t want to lose control of their reckless endangerment of people who are simply trying to get food on the table and shelter over their heads.

YOU ARE NOT SAFE from the United States Government! YOU ARE NOT PROTECTED by the United States Government!

If people don’t speak out about Kevin Perelman, and demand proper checks and balances for their own safety, they are asking for it to get worse for them. And when they find out—just as Edward Snowden said—it will be way too late. Kevin’s life is a perfect example

In Kevin’s opinion based on his nonstop experiences. the judicial system is a hoax and is not meant to protect people.

While this is not an absolutist view, there is no simple solution to a complex problem, The Police Corruption runs rampant.

They are more interested in making money off of people while piling on fake charges and threatening lives, telling people that they had better not tell anyone while they hunt and stalk with these illegal operations. Good people’s lives are being destroyed over hate, greed, insecurity, and fear, while they steal tax-paying dollars and do it with even more incentive.

It’s all done under the banner of “protect and serve.” But without real accountability, the public isn’t being protected — it’s being conditioned to tolerate more and more abuse. When people look away, excuse it, or stay silent, they’re not keeping order; they’re giving permission for things to keep escalating.

And when these people—connected at the highest levels of authority—befriend Kevin and enter his life, powerful entities with seemingly unlimited resources take part in hunting and stalking him. for no real reason. Illegal trials and judicial operations are held to make sure Kevin can’t prove innocence in courtrooms, no matter how much direct proof exists—with paid-off judges, or judges who all want these crimes covered up—ensuring that what was started when Kevin was five years old by the judicial system, police, and government never gets out in the open and to the people.

Police refusal to stop crimes against Kevin, or to help him if they don’t like him, and even Internal Affairs, means it doesn’t matter how much video footage, photos, or proof is provided. A girl tries to slice Kevin up with a knife, a person with a police-trained K9 shreds his leg all on video, they write Penal Code 187 on his car, a girl named Victoria Walker and criminal defense attorney Michael Bialys are sent after him with his Visual FX supervisor Brian Longbotham, while Brian was suing Modern Video Film for breach of contract. These people would befriend Kevin, but once they entered his life, extremely large entities with unlimited money would take part in hunting and stalking him for no legitimate reason.

It included corporations such as Universal Studios, property owner Rick Caruso, Brian Longbotham (heavily involved in these stalkings), the City of Thousand Oaks Civic Center, and many other large corporations in frame-job operations with the LAPD and Government with Worldwide support. This all demonstrated that when these people enter Kevin’s life, extremely powerful entities mobilized to hunt and stalk him for no reasonable cause.

The police broadcast defamatory information using their global systems to defame and discredit Kevin across the United States. For example, the LAPD has been blasting on their police computer system that Kevin Perelman is a public nuisance—PROVEN!—and they have spread countless other defamatory statements to cover up their crime spree against him, so when he reports a crime against himself anywhere, the authorities refuse to protect or serve. This is an escalating template since he was five years old, however he found out in 2001, when he was 29. Already doomed the minute of finding out.

Each local police department, no matter where Kevin is, works with these citizen stalking groups to hunt and kill or eradicate him anywhere in the United States. Their only real message is that they don’t care about his life, and nobody wants to know about the truth—even while they run a worldwide, daily, minute-by-minute obsessed stalking operation to eradicate him at all costs—based on thousands of defamatory fabrications and daily gaslighting tactics. In reality, they are obsessed with him and can’t let go while creating newer and newer delusional beliefs about him, while publicly claiming not to care. Obviously, they do care and are angry about something—having hunted and stalked him since he was five years old, refusing to stop until he is dead or gone for no reason other than the secret they started in 1977. They pretend what they are doing is just teasing or a game—methods to kill and get away with it, without an investigation. Deliberately designed to kill a five-year-old in these ways, by the U.S. government and psychology community.

Since no one worldwide is coming forward with honesty, it proves that what they are doing is to hunt and kill or eradicate, in an unheard-of coordinated method. The only real question left is: What were people across the United States and world told, What were they told to do directed at Kevin Perelman or if they saw him? and how did the United States government do this—uniting the majority of a planet led by depraved people in the name of control, fear, or insecurity, or supporters, to hunt and kill for them out of hate? This is something that will be analyzed for centuries to come, based on social dynamics, once the truth is out. This is what fuels the police, psychology community, security companies, and the worldwide terror and stalking network of vigilantes in this sick cause to kill or eradicate a five-year-old Jewish person, based on random statements like, “He scares me,” even when they have never even met him. These are empty, racist, bigoted judgments from day one—especially within the judicial system and government—directed at a five-year-old.

All these acts—illegal monitoring of children, police profiling and labeling, privacy violations, illegal hacking, government assassination operations, judicial cover-ups, and global stalking—demonstrate a world where a person can be stripped of all rights, dignity, and safety simply for being different, or in this case, lack of some eyebrows based on DSM-5 book of psychological labeling in it’s worst case scenario, or for daring to ask why. Every institution that should have protected Kevin chose instead to join in or turn away. Every “solution” only buried the truth further.

Conclusion:
Kevin Perelman’s life is a stark warning of how unchecked power, organized hate, and systemic dishonesty can destroy an innocent person from childhood onward. When governments, law enforcement, judicial systems, and entire communities turn their machinery of stigma, surveillance, and elimination on a single target—while pretending it is for the public’s good—everyone’s freedoms are in peril. The “hate cage” is not just a metaphor for Kevin’s experience, but a reality that could threaten anyone labeled inconvenient, imperfect, or simply different. Only through truth, accountability, and an unwavering defense of human dignity can such injustice ever be stopped.

If you don’t think you could be next, then you would be CRAZY to think that!

While this cannot be confirmed 100% chances are in my life, it’s not just a random Internet Port Scan that happens every day.

This s an example of the types of things that Ron Perelman is paying off LAPD, Lorena Escobar, and people to do. While this would normally seem trivial port scan and maybe a Cyber Security Company randomly scanning ports. It is directly linked to security companies stalking me, such as Monsoor’s Threats’ “Your Going to Jail” with their Paranoia and gas lighting Tactics.

There have been nonstop privacy violations since 1994 computer level. And a lot more based on social interactions where every aspect of my life is collected, mimicked, mocked, belittling, idea of reference tactics, and all across the World. Not one day goes by almost every human interaction is based on nonstop instigations and provokings to try to create the illusion of Mental Illness with the Perelman nonstop Death Threats. “It’s you behavior”, “It’s your Transgressions”, “You had better accept what’s going on or it will get a lot worse for you”

Normally you would say, it’s just a cyber security company scanning for open ports to analyze ways to protect the Internet and make it a better place. But in my life, things aren’t that simple.

In my life, it’s about mass groups trying to create the illusion of criminality, and mental illness as cover ups to what the Perelman Family Started in 1977.

Normally I’d agree, but when Lorena Escobar is working with Ron Perelman in Minute by Minute Golden State Sports Medical ATTACKS provokings for 10 years straight with Lead Officer Charles Sean Dinse of Topanga Division while Lorena Escobar is threatening my life “It’s what you are doing in the Privacy of your own home”, and Ron Perelman “You know what you did”

With Michael Patrick Huntley “It’s your behavior” this is no longer me being too sensitive. While noticing a pattern of pure HATE, RAGE, and STALKING directed at me.

This backed by LAPD, Lead Officer Charles Sean Dinse’s obsession with making anyone they think has any type of mental illness disappear from society due to hate and fear of the unknown.

Lorena Escobar is Ron Perelman’s office manager at Golden State Sports Medical, his Workers’ Compensation medical business. The statement and admission of guilt, “It’s what you’re doing in the privacy of your own home,” is central to why Ron Perelman paid off Mike Huntley—along with the rest of my family—to lure me back from the University of Colorado. Their goal was to get me close to them so they could stalk me, involving the LAPD and continuously inciting the masses to defame my name worldwide with their outdated, deluded ideologies about life—attitudes more fitting for the 1800s.

Lorena Escobar was paid off to stalk and target me since I was 16 years old. This manipulation culminated after the Mike Huntley death threats in 2001, including statements like, “We are using the Judicial System Against You,” “Have a good life now,” “World of Paranoia,” and “You had better live a careful life.” I was also told, “Well, you built adult websites for people, didn’t you?”—referencing Tim Thompson at our company, Signet-e Services, and my involvement with the company Mike Huntley wanted to start. These and many other threats, along with my discovery of their worldwide conspiracy to commit murder involving the United States Government and the psychology community, led Ron Perelman to manipulate me into working at his office in 2005.

Their tactics involve worldwide privacy violations and daily provocations using “ideas of reference”—subtle hints or references such as, “I know you went to this website.” Random strangers, together with computer hacking groups, have collected every detail of my life and use schizophrenia-like tactics, constantly alluding to my supposed guilt in almost every area of my life.

Buying a camera, taking photography classes, flying drones, playing pool, going to restaurants or coffee shops, taking walks or road trips, buying cars—no matter what I do, I am met with daily verbal provocations, mimicry tactics, or overt hostility that’s never directly stated. This is just like Ron Perelman, who after 40 years, still says, “You know what you did.” But when asked, he cannot actually state what this supposed transgression is, instead creating an illusion of paranoia, schizophrenia, obsession, or of me being a criminal. The intent is to execute his five-year-old child—me—across a 49-year period out of pure hate and rage.

The entire Perelman family holds psychology degrees, which reveals how their attempts to control and judge others began, stemming from self-righteous, “holier-than-thou” attitudes based on inconsequential incidents, such as hair-pulling. Their reasoning changes almost daily. For example, at age eight, in 1980, after I kissed a black girl at Sunny Skies Day Camp, they claimed I was filled with anger and rage and needed to be removed from society, even going so far as to label me anti-Semitic and racist. This information was apparently disseminated worldwide so that anyone I met afterwards would help remove me from society, poisoning the well through daily-changing defamation that spreads across the Internet.

Things escalated in 1994 at the University of Colorado, when Jason Perelman contacted me, wanting me to see “the Information Superhighway” (the Internet). He, along with his friends Mike Wexler and Jason Baum, stalked and hunted me while I was at the university. Jason had graduated from the University of Colorado before I transferred there.

Apparently, because I talked to women on IRC (Internet Relay Chat), attended IRC parties, met people, and dated while pursuing my college degrees, this upset Ron Perelman so much that he decided my very existence had to end—I had to disappear. He did not approve of online dating websites or Internet chatting. In reality, any woman I had associated with since childhood was told to cry wolf, create lies about me, and to participate in ongoing stalking and hunting, driven by hate and baseless labels.

To Ron Perelman, anything he disapproves of becomes, in his mind, a crime—even things as simple as taking a photography class at the University of Colorado with my professor Nick in the Art Department.

When he says, “You know what you did,” it could refer to something as trivial as eating at a Chinese restaurant. This demonstrates that you are dealing with a deluded, paranoid, psychotic individual who doesn’t understand right from wrong.

What followed was a worldwide conspiracy to commit murder through unconventional privacy violations and relentless attacks, including the malicious use of DSM mental illness labels as weapons designed to eradicate targets at all costs.

These methods are similar to those of the Stasi in East Germany. Ironically, this comes from a Jewish family who seems to support Gestapo-like tactics, even though such methods are used to hide who and what they really are.

What is this really about? It goes back to 1977, when the Perelman family allegedly decided their five-year-old needed to die and launched a worldwide, 49-year, minute-by-minute daily bullying operation to mentally batter me to death—while simultaneously insisting I am imagining all the ongoing attacks and abuse.

Relevant California Criminal Penal Codes:

• Penal Code 646.9 (Stalking): Repeated harassment or threats causing fear.
• Penal Code 422 (Criminal Threats): Willfully making serious threats with the intent to cause fear.
• Penal Code 187 & 664 (Murder and Attempted Murder): Conspiring or attempting to commit murder.
• Penal Code 182 (Criminal Conspiracy): Two or more people conspiring to commit any crime.
• Penal Code 236 (False Imprisonment): Restricting someone’s movement through coercion, fraud, or violence.
• Penal Code 653m (Harassing Electronic Communication): Repeated, threatening, or harassing electronic communication intended to annoy or threaten.

Potential Relevant California Criminal Penal Codes:

Penal Code 653m (Harassment via electronic communication): Repeated, unwanted electronic communication with intent to annoy/threaten.

Penal Code 646.9 (Stalking): Making repeated unwanted contact with another person causing fear for safety.

Penal Code 422 (Criminal Threats): Willfully threatening serious harm with the intent to put the victim in fear.

Penal Code 187 (Murder) & 664 (Attempted Murder): Conspiracy or attempts to commit murder are serious crimes.

Penal Code 182 (Criminal Conspiracy): Two or more persons conspiring to commit any crime.

Penal Code 368 (Elder or Dependent Adult Abuse): If there is targeted psychological abuse over time.

Penal Code 236 (False Imprisonment): Restricting someone’s freedom of movement.

While this could be a normal portscan, it probably is not. And the reason is, that LAPD with the PERELMAN family and their mass hate groups want to create the illusion of Mental Illness as a COVER UP to their 49 year crime spree against me. My life changing in 2001, met with Mike Huntley’s DEATH THREATS “World of Paranoia” and me finding out, something was very wrong. Wasn’t acceptable to them. Then realizing what they were doing with the masses to create the illusion of mental illness, starting in 1977 really upset them. Example Citiguard Security doesn’t wait outside my house in his car every night, to keep the neighborhood and Woodland Oaks Complex safe. He is paid to STALK, and Intimidate with LAPD and the masses to try to get reaction to claim I’m unstable and suffer from Mental Illness. Also Called Gas Lighting and Gang Stalking. This is done based on a Government Agenda to lock away those they don’t like or trust. The rest is manufactured as Cover Ups.