Utilizing Philosophical Principles of Game Theory in Uncovering the “State of Nature” of the Phenomenon of Electronic Targeting as Rooted in the Psychology of The God Complex
In this writing, I try to utilize philosophical principles in game theory to analyze the phenomenon of Group (Gang) Stalking, electronic stalking, electronic targeted physical assaults, and psychotronic torture. Specifically, with stalking cases that have gone on for years as in protracted conflict of war. I am hoping my writing makes some sense.
In game theory, one of the most famous rational arguments for believing in “God”, that is to say, the Superior Being (SB) from the Hebrew Bible, is that of Blaise Pascal whose approach was decision-theoretic. That is to say, Pascal's approach did not assume we play games with “God”, in which “God” actively chooses strategies. Instead, he supposes that each person makes a calculation about whether or not believing in “God” in an uncertain world is justified. Pascal also believed that a prudent person, in his cosmic ignorance, should bet his life on believing God exists. In game theory, this would provide the “ignorant individual” with the best possible outcome (#4 in the game matrix payout) with “infinite rewards both in life and upon death.”
First, is it justifiable to believe that all individuals suffering electronic stalking and electronic torture at the hands of someone suffering a “God Complex” is rational, logical, and justifiable? The answer is, No. Simply because not all individuals suffering this experience may be “hallucinating” their experiences. Second, might one be inclined to believe the target suffering electronic torture may be perceived as “an ignorant individual” by someone suffering a God Complex? The answer to this is Yes. I’m confronted with the problematic of how to prove this “invisible entity” carrying out the electronic torture exists and is not a figment of the victim’s imagination. I find in a research study conducted by Sheridan, James & Roth in 2020.
To quote from Stephen Brams, Game Theory and the Humanities: Bridging Two Worlds,
“This kind of choice is a decision in a one-person game, or a game against nature, wherein “nature” is God or some other Superior Being (SB). Unlike a player in a two-person game, “God”, if He or She exists, is assumed to be neither benevolent nor malevolent, though I do suggest … the Search Decision becomes more like a game if God or SB can influence the choice of a state of nature.” (pg. 70)
That is to say if God or the Superior Being can influence the choice of a state of nature (God exists vs. God doesn’t exist). In the protracted conflict found in the Book of Exodus, the state of nature that proves God’s existence was the ten plagues he inflicted upon Egypt. However, according to Stephen Brams' theological opinion which is suited for his analyzing whether God exists or not in game theory, “God” becomes a neutral or indifferent player in the game. Certainly, Brams could not arrive at a more politically correct decision than this!
It is here I would like to make a point to clearly elucidate our world has become far less uncertain and far more knowable, providing principles of certainty, thereby making “belief in an SB,” such as the “God” of the Judeo-Christian religion, less and less justifiable. In fact, the entire phenomenon of Group (Gang) Stalking with electronic targeting (Global Positioning Systems and other electronic weapons utilized for targeting in warfare), and electronic targeted physical assaults, and psychotronic torture, is to make “the game” less unpredictable and far more controllable for the dominant players in the game, and, even more, constraining for those players without superior knowledge and access to advancing technology or the means to somehow acquire and utilize such forms of technology for military defense. To illustrate further, consider Brams,
“I do not analyze the so-called proofs of God’s existence (or non-existence) … In an excellent synthesis of the literature, beginning with Descartes, on the existence of God, Hans Küng (1980) argues that all such proofs are flawed, and I share his view. In place of proof, Küng argues for a “rationally justified” faith, which of course does not have the force of a logical proof but, as the subtitle of his book suggests, is “an answer for today.” This answer according to Küng is rooted in developing a fundamental “trust in reality”; Pascal’s wager may be seen as a reason, perhaps cynical, to develop this trust.” (pg. 70)
It is here that I like to make yet another point in regard to Hans Küng’s principle of “trust in reality” (1980) and the phenomenon of Group (Gang) Stalking, electronic stalking, electronic targeted physical assaults, and psychotronic torture in that it mimics an “act of God,” but is decidedly being carried out by mortal human being(s) posing as “a God; agent provocateur”, as a primary conspirator, or co-conspirator in a protracted game of conflict. According to Küng, all proofs on “God’s” existence as an SB are flawed. In place of proof to the existence of “God,” Küng argues for “rationally justified” faith, however, this argument does not provide logical proof. The answer, according to Küng, is developing a fundamental “trust in reality,” and using Pascal’s wager to demonstrate how the development of this “trust” is arrived at and then using Bram’s reframing of it as a Search Decision we arrive at some philosophical understanding in game theory regarding the purpose of electronic torture in the phenomenon known as Group (Gang) Stalking. It is these three (3) elements taken together; “trust in reality”, Pascal’s wager, and the Search Decision that when they all come together, we begin to understand its purpose. Its purpose is to unhinge and unravel P’s arrived at the decision that “the Superior Being in the Hebrew Bible [“God”] exists.” In the absence of torture, this is the arrived at a logical determination for many players without resources in “the game,” even those who have suffered natural losses as the consequence of everyday living. That is to say, players who, due to no fault of their own, remain disenfranchised. The right for one to believe in this “God” as part of the Judeo-Christian faith is protected by the 1st amendment, which violates all targeted individual’s 1st amendment rights as well as their 4th amendment rights.
Pascal’s Wager, Trust in Reality, and the Search Decision
Pascal’s Wager assumes a person is in a betting situation and must stake his destiny on some view of the world. In his or her search for proof in (1) believing “God” exists, or, (2) believing “God” does not exist. The agnostic assumption stated in №223 of Pascal’s Pensées states “if there is a God … we are incapable of knowing what He is, or whether He is,” and “reason can settle nothing here … a game[!] is on.” What is more, is the fact that the SB’s existence remains indeterminate because the information that would settle this question is unattainable. Brams more accurately perceives “God” not as an individual but as “a state of nature.” The problem with that assumption is that it is in contradiction with the games played in the Hebrew Bible. For example, The Temptation Game (Gen. 3:1–6), Abraham’s Sacrifice (Gen. 22:1–13), Ten Plagues of Pharoah (Exodus 7–12), and a whole host of other games every student of the Bible would be familiar with. As far as my personal experience, electronic stalking, with electronic physical assaults and psychotronic torture is similar in nature to the protracted conflict in Exodus between Pharoah and Moses and the Israelites. In this game’s payoff matrix, the best possible outcome for “God” and Moses was to continue the “plagues” thereby revealing “God’s” power (#4=the best possible outcome), allowing Moses and the Israelites the freedom “to leave the country,” thereby leaving Pharoah and the Egyptians impotent. What is even more interesting is that God’s “plagues” are listed as “part of the state of nature.” For me, the analysis that most accurately describes “God” is most certainly as “a player in the game,” and one who makes conscious decisions based on what the other players do. He also reveals himself as one who is suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. An Adolf Hitler, if you will (see Donald Capps, 2009).
“Trust in reality” is one of Hans Küng’s fundamental principles playing into game theory that states, “I say ‘Yes’ to the uncertain reality of my own existence and of the world,” and as such, I commit myself to reality, relying on reality, allowing it to gradually unfold its meaning to me.” This postulate is most certainly held by those in positions of powerlessness and where P’s cosmic ignorance, weakness, powerlessness would certainly foster belief in a “Superior Being’s” existence in their reality, as such the “God” from the Judeo-Christian faith.
When I use the following terms, “cosmic ignorance,” “weakness,” or “powerlessness” I mean P’s ignorance in such fields of study such as geology (the understanding of geological forces), meteorology (the understanding of weather events), medicine (how disease proliferates), agriculture (how pestilences are deterred), psychology (understanding your opponent’s mental states), physics (understanding the principles and laws that allow fundamental physics to operate in building bridges, tall buildings, and landscapes, etc.) and so on and so forth. Speaking of pestilences, no other bug infestation could be as great for a human being as the one in which a person’s life is being surveilled through various electronic means. But, nonetheless about that; by “weakness” and “powerlessness,” I mean people whose free-wills are capable of being molded in order to be “lead and subjugated by someone with the dominant power.” I also mean by these two terms, those without the power to convince and influence others with their version of “truth,” as Nietzsche suggests. Nietzsche’s early essay, “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense,” argues that Nietzsche believes the very idea of “truth” to be a lie. Truth is not an elephant that we must look at from multiple perspectives under this view and that, but rather truth is simply the name given to the point of view of the people who have the power to enforce their point of view. The only reality is the will to power. The truth, like morality, is just another fig leaf placed on top of this reality.
In addition, by using the terms “weakness” and “powerlessness” I mean, disenfranchised people such as the ancient Israelites who were dominated by superior power (Pharoah) under oppressive conditions. This has formerly made-up mostly the lower and middle classes. Certainly, those with advanced intellects and IQs need no proof of his “non-existence.” Additionally, one might consider the influence of the Pope and other church authorities on the followers of the Catholic faith, and too, consider how the Roman Catholic faith was not above physical torture to exact their power over “Other” in influence people’s decision making with regards to which faith they applied their energy (Murphy, 2012).
In the Search Decision, if P does not have any other dominant strategy, his or her best decision is to believe in “God” and “play the game of religion.” And here we can use a very useful quote by Blaise Pascal (Pensées, 1760/1950);
“One understands nothing of the works of God unless he starts from the principle that God willed to blind some and enlighten others.”
It is the Search Decision that may be employed to facilitate the dominant player’s position in exacting their punishment against the targeted subjects through electronic torture. This is a noncooperative game, where information is incomplete, and to which, in the end, there could only be one winner and one loser. A zero-sum game as in the protracted conflict in Exodus.
For, if meaning is to be derived at from human physical torture, what does its meaning tell us? Of course, there are many things this meaning tells someone. Here is a list of some I have deduced:
(1) There are sadistic dominant players in the world who are not above torturing others for pleasure (Lyons & Jonason, 2015; Krick, Tresp, Vatter, Ludwig, Wihlenda & Rettenberger, 2016; Johnson, Plouffe & Saklofske, 2019).
(2) That no matter how “faithful” or “good” one might adhere to their religious faith, “bad things happen to good people.”
(3) That a tortured life may not be worth living, for any former quality of life that may have existed before the subject’s electronic targeting has been usurped by the abuser.
(4) If the tortured subject (game player) still has any ounce of faith left, it might provide him/her some relief from their pain. (Consider the Book of Job)
Again, the aspect of indeterminacy, not only as to the reason for electronic torture but in establishing the identity of the “God” reigning over countless people, torturing them, making their life miserable, makes it difficult to ascertain what he or she truly wants. Group (Gang) Stalking with electronic targeted physical assaults and psychotronic torture seems to be a game of incomplete information, but one that is clearly a noncooperative game as the players seem to be diametrically opposed to one another making it a zero-sum game with one winner and one loser. This begs the question, “Who is really winning? Who is losing? It would seem the electronically targeted individual is losing out.
Of course, Blaise Pascal’s agnostic assumption, though during his lifetime may have been more relevant, today is completely flawed in my opinion. In today’s 21st century world, we have advanced and fostered the branch of academic study known as Psychoanalysis. It is, therefore, possible to know who “God” is as the SB of the Hebrew-Christian Bible through forensic profiling (see Donald Capps, 2009). Thus, forensic psychoanalysis lends itself to our understanding of what “God’s” nature actually represents. That is to say, what he represents to P’s search for him in their reality, although may provide peace in keeping the faith. In today’s world, we have identifiable markers we’ll call attributes that provide us the ability to establish identity (Elmer, 2003; Humphreys, 2011; Wang & Tucker, 2017). These traditionally are the attributes; first name, last name, birth date, social security number, address, driver’s license number, car registration, religious affiliation, and political orientation. These attributes all come together so that every individual’s identity can be known in the world. Along with these attributes we have physical traits such as; hair color, eye color, gender, weight, height, tattoo markings, and birthmarks. These make up the physically identifiable traits that allow one to become recognizable in the world. “God’s” indeterminate status does not allow “P” to know what these attributes are because he has chosen to hide them from us. We can most certainly understand the perpetrators’ of electronic stalking, electronic physical assaults, and psychotronic torture purpose for hiding these very identifiable attributes. They choose not to reveal themselves explicitly, but implicitly through the arrival at scientific forensic analysis. Most specifically what they hide are their gender and name. Although any student of psychoanalysis studying gender theory can discover the masculine / feminine behavioral attributes associated with individual behaviors. The study of such concepts can allow one the ability in establishing a perpetrator’s gender orientation and identity. Or are we to assume anthropomorphism in all cases where identity is not known? Although “God” chooses to hide his identity from his subjects, he has left clues about his personality. Of course, I assume “God’s” gender, hair color, eye color, weight, height, religious affiliation, and political orientation change, as one would expect, when old rulers exist and new rulers take over.
Brams, Steven J. (1980). Biblical Games: A Strategic Analysis of Stories in the Old Testament. Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press.
Brams, Steven J. (2012). Game Theory and the Humanities: Bridging Two Worlds. Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press.
Capps, D. “God Diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.” Pastoral Psychol 58, 193–206 (April 2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-008-0139-9
Elmer, G. (2003). A Diagram of Panoptic Surveillance. New Media & Society, 5(2), 231–247.
Humphreys, L. (2011). Who’s Watching Whom? A Study of Interactive Technology and Surveillance. Journal of Communication, 61(4),
Johnson, L., Plouffe, R., & Saklofske, D. (2019). Subclinical Sadism and the Dark Triad. Journal of Individual Differences, 40(3), 127–133.
Krick, A., Tresp, S., Vatter, M., Ludwig, A., Wihlenda, M., & Rettenberger, M. (2016). The Relationships Between the Dark Triad, the Moral Judgment Level, and the Students’ Disciplinary Choice. Journal of Individual Differences, 37(1), 24–30.
Lyons, M., & Jonason, P. (2015). Dark Triad, Tramps, and Thieves. Journal of Individual Differences, 36(4), 215–220.
Murphy, Cullen. (2012). God’s Jury: The Inquisition and the making of the modern world. Boston, Mass. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Pagels, Elaine. (1995). The Origins of Satan. New York. Random House.
Sheridan, Lorraine; James, David V.; and Roth, Jayden. (March 12, 2020) The Phenomenology of Group Stalking (‘Gang Stalking’): A Content Analysis of Subjective Experiences. International Journal of Environmental Research Public Health. 17(7), 2506. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/7/2506/htm#B5-ijerph-17-02506
Wang, V., & Tucker, J.V. (2017). Surveillance and identity: conceptual framework and formal models. Journal of Cybersecurity, 3(3),
Other writings to consider published by the author:
Barna, Karen. (2021). In Nietzschean View: Defining the concept of truth. ProclivitysPrincipleWisdom.Medium.com. Published October 24, 2021. Retrieved online November 8, 2021. Karen Barna — Medium
Barna, Karen. (2021). What The Book of Job Teaches Us About Game Theory and the Phenomenon of Group (Gang) Stalking of the Targeted Individual. ProclivitysPrincipleWisdom.Medium.com. Published October 4, 2021. Retrieved online November 8, 2021. What The Book of Job Teaches Us About Game Theory and the Phenomenon of Group (Gang) Stalking of the Targeted Individual | by Karen Barna | Oct, 2021 | Medium
Barna, Karen. (2021). A Brief History of Satan and a Brief Explanation on Why Group (Gang) Stalking May Be the Result of Inner-Group Conflict. ProclivitysPrincipleWisdom.Medium.com. Published on October 9, 2021. Retrieved online November 8, 2021. Karen Barna — Medium