Employing Game Theory in Understanding Interactions of Gang Stalking, Electronic Assaults, and Psychotronic Torture
“Life as we know it, and probably throughout the universe, if there is life elsewhere, means the universe, if there is life elsewhere, means Darwinian life. In a Darwinian world, that which survives survives, and the world becomes full of whatever qualities it takes to survive. As Darwinians, we start pessimistically by assuming deep selfishness at the level of natural selection, pitiless indifference to suffering, ruthless attention to individual success at the expense of others. And yet from such warped beginnings, something can come that is in effect, if not necessarily in intention, close to amicable brotherhood and sisterhood. This is the uplifting message of Robert Axelrod’s remarkable book.”
The above quote was written by Richard Dawkins for the new edition’s Foreward of Axelrod’s book, The Evolution of Cooperation. In evolutionary game theory, it is believed that nature bestows genes that make a species behavior strong and successful while making other’s species behavior weak and unsuccessful and this evolutionary fact is what has given rise to the successful evolution of modern man; Homo Erectus. However, the term “Darwinian life” has become somewhat of an obsolete term. This theory was believed at a time before man acquired the ability to manipulate the genome of a wide range of species by manually introducing “snippets” of foreign genetic material which give rise to “hybrid” organisms. This process is known as CRISPR. It also doesn’t address his ability to introduce stimulus into species environments that cause the species to either flourish or perish, like vast amounts of toxins introduced into the ocean waters during oil spills, and man’s ability to manipulate populations of genetic material (test subjects) in unethical, inhumane ways. Consider the development of Genetically Modified Organisms known as GMOs.
It appears to me, the phenomenon known as gang stalking, electronic targeted assaults, and psychotronic torture attempts to tilt the stage of what Darwinian called “natural selection” in a very similar way to how man has created genetically modified products. Like the introduction of toxic material into the ocean environment through large-scale toxic spills, a whole chain of events and responses are set in motion. Similarly, I propose the game of electronically targeting individuals through electronic bodily assaults can be understood through game theory and it is similar to the game known as the Prisoner’s Dilemma and expressed through the game of “Hawk and Mouse”. In the “Hawk and Mouse” game, game theory tells us that it is an evolutionary game and that it is also a form of limited warfare if evolutionary stable. That is, even though some organisms may be sacrificed, there will still remain a stable portion of the species within the population. Limited warfare is conflict that doesn’t end in serious injury. In this case, complete and total annihilation of an entire species. Similarly, it appears that man has waged this form of “limited warfare” within the planet’s environment through limited resource depletion known as game seasons; fishing season, rabbit season, duck season, deer season, etc. In the game theory of gang stalking with electronic targeted assaults, and psychotronic torture it appears to be “limited war” simply because it is being waged on a fractional portion of American citizens within the United States where a portion of the population is sacrificed while the remaining much larger portion remains a stable portion of the population.
There is another aspect to the game theory we must consider known as Grim Strategy. Grim Strategy is the “dark” form of Prisoner’s Dilemma games. If you’ve been reading my post, you might remember I discussed personality constellations known as the “Dark Triad” or “Dark Tetrad” traits. These personality types have a strong tendency to play “dark games.” We now can come to understand how these “dark” games are played. In a “Dark Tit for Tat” Prisoner’s Dilemma game. The thinking goes like this, “I’ll cooperate with you as long as you always cooperate with me, but if you double-cross me…….” These types of games can be most readily understood when we look at organized crime activities or classic Mafia games.
So here is ONE of my dilemmas:
I’m laying in bed and in the early morning hours, very early morning hours right before dawn, ELF (extremely low-level electromagnetic frequency) is turned on inside my body which causes me to feel fatigued and become tired. Now, what is it that my “prison guard(s)” are anticipating in my behavior? I assume they have knowledge of my routine and have anticipated behaviors like; to wake-up, get dressed, and start exercising. Which is what a lot of healthy people choose to do. This is, by the way, a personal decision that differs from a game.
Now, the purpose of games is to “win,” and the purpose of game theory is to learn how to understand all the angles, so as competitors we play our best strategies and, hopefully, anticipate our opponents’ strategies as well. If game theory exercises are carefully controlled thought experiments that allow a person to guess how the other person is going to act, we might understand the control and manipulation of gang stalking, electronic targeted assaults, and psychotronic torture as a way of controlling our opponent's thoughts, behaviors, and decisions thereby affording us an upper advantage in winning the game. This would in effect eliminate the problem in game theory where games do not play out as their theory predicts. And only when one has harnessed the power to control his opponents, like we will come to see with grooming and targeting in predatory sexual behavior on college campuses through the use of alcohol and deceptive sexual practices we will make the connection to issues of civil rights violations. This is where individual and personal decisions (freedom to exercise one’s free will) are usurped by another interested in winning the advantage. Grooming and targeting in predatory sexual behavior on college campuses will be discussed later.
Back to my prison guards who know me and know which responses I am most likely to choose. My guards understand my choices so much so, that this game incorporates the psychological re-grooming of behavior. The question posed is this: “Under what conditions will cooperation emerge in a world of egoists who have no central authority?”
Now, I have only studied a few lectures on game theory but I believe the answer to this question is the following:
Conditions of cooperation emerge in a world of egoists with no central authority where and when there is a shared interest do so. If we turn to the theatre of war during World War I where peace periodically broke out all along the front of trench warfare. Both the German and Allied parties agreed to cooperate and not shoot one another. They did not attack each other’s food truck deliveries. They agreed to a cease-fire on all holidays and if they were instructed to shoot by headquarters, they agreed to purposefully miss. To “Shoot where they ain’t” as it were. This was because there existed between both groups a shared interest in survival.
Now, let's consider this game looking through the lens of Grim Strategy in a “Dark Tit for Tat” scenario. In this scenario, we take into consideration unlawful gang activity and the games gangs employ to manage their “illegal authority over others.” In classic Mafia game theory, these games were played to manage their “rackets” and “control their business security.” In this scenario, we have what is known as a form of “dark warfare” where two different groups, in conflict with each other, play the “Dark Tit for Tat” game for the purpose of gaining a stake in whatever is being fought over, say a certain cut in the profits or access to a port terminal of entry to smuggle illegal cargo into the United States or in what has historically been seen in the political theatres of war, to win the right over eliminating a political rival and/or re-establishing the ownership of the political opponent territories.
In Grim Strategy game theory, the grooming and targeting in predatory sexual behavior on college campuses through the use of alcohol and deceptive sexual practices is expressed as masculine entitlement to possess the female object body. Let us consider game theory on college campuses in college games, “party games that groom for sex” and later we will consider this type of game for the purpose for “re-grooming for illness” in what I have a very personal experience with, gang stalking, electronic targeted assaults, and psychotronic torture.
Understanding the rise of sexual predation on campus, namely those individuals who prey on others to meet their own sexual needs and/or exert a sense of power and control through sexual assault and rape, requires an understanding of dark personality traits and dark game theory. “Predators use coercion and grooming behaviors to lower the defenses of the target and increase their vulnerability to sexual violence. Predators seek to lessen a victim’s ability to advocate for personal safety and disempower them from bringing concerns forward to authorities (Armstrong et al. 2006; Humphrey and Kahn 2000; LaViolette and Barnett 2000; Meloy and Fisher 2005).” This type of grooming also takes place for the annihilation of one’s competitors (“re-grooming for illness”) so the playing field is cast uneven and tilted in which the predators achieve the higher ground and ultimately win bigger shares of the bounty. Since, one of the goals of dehumanization is “status-reducing” interpersonal maltreatments (Barna, 2021), a social-cognitive process termed as “mechanistic dehumanization” in which humans are likened to objects or automata and denied human qualities like warmth, human emotion, and individuality (Haslam, 2006).
I am not going to reconstruct a basic game diagram of the game played on college campuses between predators to sexual assault offering alcohol to their opponents; fellow female college students. But I am sure you can reconstruct a basic game diagram yourself. Some good questions to ask are, “What do you think is going to happen in this game?” and “What are the dominant strategies of the two players?” A dominant strategy is always the strategy that will make it most likely for each player to win. NASH EQUILIBRIUM is easy to determine in game theory because it’s simply where both parties choose to play their dominant strategy. It may not be immediately obvious where the players will end up and what the outcomes might be, but in the game of gang stalking with electronic targeted assaults and psychotronic torture, the intent is clear. Remember, INTENT is what we need in order to establish MENS REA, the mental state the proves the actors acting with intention to harm and determine whether or not a crime has been committed.
In a game aimed toward the “grooming for the annihilation of your competitor,” I have come to call “grooming for illness” we can see how becoming intimately versed in your opponent's behavior allows for you to set up the scenario of the prisoner’s dilemma that incorporates a Grimm Strategy; early morning extremely low electronic frequency stimulation (ELF). I use the play on the word Grimm to refer to Grimm’s fairytales and the association made with unconscious fantasies and the relational world in object relations theory. This is a game that is repetitively played over and over again in what is known as a Repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma. The perpetrator, under a veil of secrecy in which identity cannot be decerned, speaks to me through a mode of physical assault where language and speech have fallen away and has been rendered in the form of representations, symbolism, and metaphor. That is the phallic power of the possessed electronic weapon that reigns over me with intentions of a Grimm strategic purpose. In this game, both opponents arrived at what is known in game theory as the Nash Equilibrium. Both of us are playing our dominant strategy. It is in my best interest not to move out of my home? Although this scenario may not be in my best interest, there is no guarantee that the electronic targeting will not follow me. If I do choose to move out, and the electronic targeting follows me, will I be worse off? Or is it more likely that if I move out, the person electronically targeting me will stop their incessant punishments and let me go? How am I to know what my best strategy is? While I value independence and cooperation which is played out in the goal of interdependence, I am allowing a form of abuse to continue which I absolutely do not support. We can pose a simple question: When should a person cooperate, and when should a person be selfish, in an ongoing interaction with another person? Should a friend keep providing favors to another friend who never reciprocates? Should a person continue to provide another with continued cooperation in the face of clear and present hostile abuse which is taking place against them? Should a business provide prompt service to another business that is about to be bankrupt? How intensely should the United States try to punish the Soviet Union for a particular hostile act, and what pattern of behavior can the United States use to best elicit cooperative behavior from the Soviet Union? All of these are really good questions to ask when we discuss interpersonal relations, intersubjectivity, and the decisions made when playing political and social games.
There is a difference between a decision and a game. In a decision, I make a choice to do something without any regard for another person (this makes a clear representation of my independent choice and what the constitution grants as civil rights). In a game, two or more players choose what to do based on what they think the other players are going to do. As such, a game always has a strategy. What should I do given what you think I will do? And what should I do given what I think you will do given what you think I will do? This can become very abstract very quickly. This is the game of gang stalking, electronic targeted assaults, and psychotronic torture except it is being played on a very unlevel playing field where the “fairness” of the game is tilted ONLY to the perpetrators or winning opponents’ side of the game, thereby giving him the upper advantage.
So, to be asked by a police officer, “Why don’t you move out of your home?” makes me very suspicious of the intentions of the officer because my position cannot be reduced to such black and white strategies; “to stay” or “to go.” My position is not as concrete as such because there are deeper abstract positions and alternate strategies to consider because there are alternate players in this game who pose a clear and present danger to the rest of society. That is to say, a whole range of alternative propositions exist where the identities of some of the other players are not known and therefore, what they will do cannot be known with any level of certainty creating an even greater level of abstraction in the game. Typically, these are the types of abstractions played in espionage games where subterfuge is a predominant skillset played with the sole object of winning.
In my position as a Targeted Individual, there exist persons with deep selfishness, pitiless indifference to suffering, and ruthless attention to individual success at the expense of others. If you remember from the opening quote to this essay by Richard Dawkins, he called this position warped.
In a decision, I make a choice to do something without any regard for another person. In my case, to choose to get up and exercise before I go to work and eat tofu and vegetables for lunch. This freedom has been taken away, I no longer have the choice to awake and perform physical exercise in pursuit of health and well-being. This represents a violation of independence and what the constitution grants as civil liberties. Now, I have been thrown into a game, as an unwilling opponent, by another party to play as a competitor, in a very real, very tilted, unfair game that offers ONLY to the other opponent advantages over my body and mind (psychotronic torture).
Now, if we return to the beginning of the essay where evolutionary game theory is defined as the belief that nature bestows genes that make a species behavior strong and successful while making other’s species behavior weak and unsuccessful, we can come to an understanding of why terms like Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” has become obsolete in light of the phenomenon of electronic targeting and psychotronic torture which seeks to impose a form of illegal control over a fractional portion of the American population.
Finally, to conclude, professor Jay R. Corrigan at Kenyon University tells us in economics there are some Prisoner’s Dilemmas known as Trade Wars. “For example, tariffs are placed on imports in any given country as that country’s Dominant Strategy regardless of what other countries are doing. That’s because tariffs have the potential to boost domestic firms' sales at the expense of their foreign competitors. In this game, the Nash Equilibrium is where all countries play that dominant strategy. But economists are quick to tell you this is not a good outcome because it limits the gains from trade. When you focus on what you are best at, and I focus on what I am best at, and we trade with one another we are both made better off. Tariffs and other trade barriers mean we devote fewer resources to the things we are best at doing, making us poorer in the long run (Anczewska, Roszczynska-Michta, Waszkiewicz, Charzynska, Czabala, 2021).”
Sources:
Anczewska, Marta; Roszczynska-Michta, Joanna; Waszkiewicz, Justyna; Charzynska, Katarzyna; Czabala, Czeslaw. Empowering Women with Domestic Violence Experience. Retrieved online May 10, 2021. The paper defines the concept of Empowerment as an approach that allows for the enhancement that allows for the possibility for people to control their own lives. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED567107.pdf
Armstrong, Elizabeth A., Hamilton, Laura, & Sweeney, Brian. (2006). Sexual Assault on Campus: A Multilevel, Integrative Approach to Party Rape. Social Problems. Vol.53, №4. pp.483–499. Published by Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2006.53.4.483
Axelrod, Robert. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. New York. Basic Books.
Barna, Karen. (2021). The Social Psychology of Dehumanizing Attitudes and Behaviors: Theoretical evidence to explain gang stalking and electronic targeted assaults. ProclivitiesPrincipleWisdom.Wordpress.com. Published online April 26, 2021. Retrieved Online May 10, 2021. https://proclivitiesprinciplewisdom.wordpress.com/2021/04/26/the-social-psychology-of-dehumanizing-attitudes-and-behaviors-theoretical-evidence-to-explain-gang-stalking-and-electronic-targeted-assaults/
Halsam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: an integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 10, 252–264. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
Humphrey, S. E., & Kahn, A. S. (2000). Fraternities, Athletic Teams, and Rape: Importance of Identification With a Risky Group. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(12), 1313–1322. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626000015012005
LaViolette, Alyce D. & Barnett, Ola W. (2000). Why Battered Women Stay. London. Sage Publishers.
Meloy, J. Reid, Ph.D. & Fisher, Helen, Ph.D. (2005). Some Thoughts on the Neurobiology of Stalking. Journal of Forensic Science. Vol. 50, №6. http://drreidmeloy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2005_SomeThoughtsont.pdf
Van Brunt, Brian; Murphy, Amy; Pescara-Kovach, Lisa; and Crance, Gina-Lyn. (2019). Early Identification of Grooming and Targeting in Predatory Sexual Behavior on College Campuses. Violence and Gender. Vol. 6, №1 Published online March 11, 2019.
Corrigan, Jay R., Ph.D. Understanding Economics: Game Theory. Lectures 1. Game Theory Basics: The Prisoner’s Dilemma. Great Courses Plus. Retrieved on May 9, 2021.
Corrigan, Jay R., Ph.D. Understanding Economics: Game Theory. Lecture 2. Repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma Games. Great Courses Plus. Retrieved on May 9, 2021.
