Soren Kierkegaard’s Philosophies and Its Connection to Electronic Targeted Assaults and Psychotronic Torture: God is dead and a maniacal man’s god-complex

Updated: July 6, 2021

Soren Kierkegaard’s Works To Consider:

Soren Kierkegaard “Fear and Trembling”

Soren Kierkegaard “The Sickness Unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition for Upbuilding and Awakening”

Soren Kierkegaard “The Concept of Anxiety”

Soren Kierkegaard “Philosophical Fragments”

This analysis reveals the disturbed mind behind my personal experiences with electronic targeted assaults and psychotronic torture as I believe the person behind these assaults possesses a “god complex” or maniacal mentality. It has been repeatedly told to me that “I have a rude awakening.” This was told to me by my son’s father; my now ex. And, most recently, it has been told to me by my mother. According to my mother, “my rude awakening will come after she dies.” Am I to believe that something even more heinous and horrible is going to happen to me after she dies that isn’t already occurring? Am I to believe that what is already being done to me isn’t heinous enough?


Similarities I have found in Soren Kierkegaard’s philosophies and the phenomenon of Gang Stalking with Electronic Targeted Assaults, and Psychotronic Torture:

(1) Soren Kierkegaard’s psychological work explores the emotions and feelings of individuals when faced with life choices. Life choices involve change. As the electronic targeted assaults begin or the criminal conspiracy begins which utilizes electronic targeted assaults and psychotronic torture consider the philosophical connection between the unequivocal clearly stated dialectic and the ambiguous unclear dialectic of electronic targeted assaults and psychotronic torture; how does the person respond to the adversity or anxiety? what does the person do in response to the electronic targeted assaults or psychotronic torture? Are all targeted individuals’ responses similar? No. Some actually take up arms and kill others.

(2) Kierkegaard’s existentialist philosophy is not similar to Nietzsche’s “God is dead.” Kierkegaard was critical of the practice of Christianity as a Danish state religion and wrote extensively on Christendom, morality, ethics. Why does God continue to exist? Because of man’s “anxieties about death” and his proclivity toward sin through what he called “inherited sin” and “Fear and Trembling” and “The Sickness Until Death” in man’s dialectical relationship with God and God-Man (Jesus Christ.) Kierkegaard’s critical opinion of organized religion know as Christianity and how it can distract or confuse a person’s authentic relationship between themselves and God exposes the perpetrator’s of electronic targeted assaults mentality which is aligned with Soren Kierkegaard’s views on organized religious authority. I’ve already unveiled another critical characteristic of the perpetrator as being heterosexual in a previous post. Another critical characteristic is their opposition to forms of god, authority or belief in organized religion(s).

“God is dead” means that God no longer serves as this guarantee of either morality nor of knowledge, especially of metaphysical knowledge which would also support my proposed thesis that electronic targeted assaults and psychotronic torture may be connected to advancing medicine and/or state administrative-legal sanctions as a form of incarcerating subjects. Marijuana has been de-criminalized (like alcohol) and people who harbor hatred against such administrative reliefs will target such groups. Exposing a conspiracy to do so by those in power would be of great help to support my argument. For to say such things DON’T even exist is nieve. To paraphrase Hamlet, herein lies the rub, that the very nature of electronic targeted assaults’ indirect communication or ambiguous dialectic confounds and confuses the phenomenon.

(3) Kierkegaard’s “frequent deployment of indirect communication” and the structuring of ambiguity. The distinction between direct and indirect communication is to be drawn in terms of the difference between unequivocal (clearly stated) and ambiguous language (unclear, silent semiotics, and veiled meaning which expresses, as a characteristic of the perpetrator a high degree of sadism). This connects Kierkegaard’s philosophy to the silent semiotics (ambiguous dialectic) of electronic targeted assaults and psychotronic torture as a form of indirect communication as well as to the philosophical theories of Michelle Boulous Walker and also, too, interpreting visual arts by analyzing signs, symbols, signifiers, and iconography.

Consider the movie “Prisoners” which features an award-winning performance by Jake Gyllenhaal. A disturbing, emotional psychological thriller, Gyllenhaal won the Best Supporting Actor of the Year Award (2013) at the Hollywood Film Festival, the protagonist whose child dies prematurely of pediatric cancer causes her to lose faith in God. She then, as a result, takes up a mission to kidnap other people’s children, drug them, and murder them so their parents are not misled by a belief in a maniacal God who turns his back on innocent victims. Psychoanalytically speaking, we can understand the re-capitulated silent semiotics when all these other children “go missing.” The scope of her mission is to make other’s lose faith and give up hope. Soren Kierkegaard’s philosophies can aptly be applied to this movie’s premise as well as to gang stalking with electronic targeted assaults and psychotronic torture. I wonder if he ever imagined the development of such heinous technology being used against people; the machinery of the Holocaust and, I wonder, what Kierkegaard might have thought about it and how it caused millions of Jews to lose faith in their God.

As this movie’s name implies, those individuals who are being electronically targeted and assaulted from a distance and suffering the effects of psychotronic torture have come under the “charge” of another. They have become “Prisoners” in a game that continues to play out in the life of the Targeted Individual, or at least a fractional portion of a population with whom contends with its silent semiotics. This is, of course, nothing more than a recapitulation of some past perceived violation similar to the protagonist’s actions in the movie “Prisoners.”

First, in distinguishing direct and indirect communication in terms of ‘subjective’ and ‘objective thinking’, and the notion of a ‘double reflection’, Kierkegaard’s pseudonym Johannes Climacus writes, ‘ordinary communication, objective thinking, has no secrets; only doubly reflected subjective thinking has secrets; that is, all its essential content is essentially a secret.’(Søren Kierkegaard, Hong and Hong (trans.), Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), p. 79.)

The distinction drawn in this passage is between what is accidentally and what is essentially secret, or private, and so the claim is that what is indirectly communicated is essentially private.’’ (On this point see Merold Westphal, Becoming a Self: A Reading of Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript (West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 1996), p. 62.)

My personal comment on this point is that I would not change the word “private” but also add the word “personal.”

I believe Kierkegaard’s main idea in his work Philosophical Fragments is as follows:

“But God can’t make himself understood because he’s completely unlike every other human being. God has not sinned, whereas every human being has. This is a paradox but the ultimate paradox is that a single individual who looks just like everyone else is God. “The thesis that God has existed in human form, was born, and grew up; is certainly the paradox in the strictest sense, the absolute paradox.” Christianity is also a paradox as well as the forgiveness of sins. Kierkegaard is saying that the “Moment” the individual comes in contact with the Paradox is of utmost importance because this is where the decision is made. This is ab his Either/Or moment. Either believe or be offended. Reason is attempting to understand the Paradox but comes to its own limit and can’t understand what it knows nothing about.” (~information compliments of

Here is the reason why “God” (the purveyors of electronic targeted assaults and psychotronic torture, as well as cyber actors committing cybercrime) can’t make himself understood is because he isn’t real, or rather, he presents himself as a “ghost” or an “imaginary character.” Since he is rather an imaginary object, a ghost, an alien, some monster from a fairytale, or some superhero with superpowers he fails to exist in reality. He is an ordinary man and not imaginary. And herein lies the philosophical problematic when it comes to electronic targeted assaults and psychotronic torture and events similar to the Colonial Pipeline hack. The perpetrator, because he chooses to veil himself and hide his identity, can neither be wholly known neither. For he is likening himself to an imaginary “God-like” character. Similar to the very concept of “God,” its meaning presents us with a contradiction in terms. He, like God, in one breathe says, “I love you my child, but dare you disobey me and I will strike you down dead.” This cannot be love. Love by its very definition in 1 Corinthians 13:4–12 contradicts this message and herein lies the contradiction:

(4) Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. (5) It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. (6) Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. (7) It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

(8) Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. (9) For we know in part and we prophesy in part, (10) but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. (11) When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. (12) For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.


Turnbull, Jamie. Kierkegaard, Indirect Communication, and Ambiguity. The Heythrop Journal. Volume 50, Issue 1. Published January 2009. pp. 13–22.

Other sources cited in the post.



Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Karen Barna

Karen Barna


I am a Targeted Individual suffering electronic harassment. I write about gender difference and object relations and feminism. I am Gen. X