What Game Theory Teaches Us About War and How It Relates to Gangstalking with Electronic Targeted Assaults and Psychotronic Torture
The purpose of this post is to get the reader to think about the United States policy decision at the end of the Cold War, and compare it to the game theory strategy of gang stalking, electronic targeted assaults, and psychotronic torture of Targeted Individuals. It is important that the reader think critically about the difference between finite games and infinite games and the quagmire that is generated when a finite player is pitted against an infinite player. Consider the following transcript from Simon Sinek’s TedTalk of 2015.
“At the end of the Cold War, the United States made a policy decision that may be one of the biggest mistakes of the 21st century. It’s contributed to chaos and uncertainty in this current day. And it’s not based on politics it’s based on games.
In game theory, there are two types of games. There are finite games and there are infinite games.
A finite game is defined as known players, fixed rules, and agreed-upon objectives; Baseball.
An infinite game is defined as known and unknown players, the rules are changeable, and the objective is to perpetuate the game.
When you pit a finite player versus a finite player the system is stable. Baseball is stable. So is conventional war for that matter.
When you pit an infinite player versus an infinite player the system is also stable, THE COLD WAR was stable. That’s because in an infinite game there are no winners and losers. WE CANNOT LOSE THE GAME. And so, we work to keep the game in play. In fact, because there are no winners and losers, THE ONLY THING A PLAYER CAN DO IS DROP OUT WHEN THEY RUN OUT OF THE RESOURCES OR THE WILL TO PLAY. Problems arise, however, when you pit a finite player versus an infinite player. It’s the finite player who then gets caught in QUAGMIRE. This happens in business all the time. The game of business is an infinite game. The concept of business has lasted longer than every single company that exists right now. And it will exist long after all the companies that exist right now go away. The funny thing about business is the number of businesses that are playing finite. They are playing to win. They’re playing to be the best. They are playing to beat the quarter or the year. And they are always frustrated by that company that has an amazing vision, that long-term vision that seems to drive them crazy. And over the long term that player will always win, and the other player will run out of the resources or the will, and they’ll either go out of business or be bought or sold or merged, or whatever it is.
This is also what happened to the United States in Vietnam. The United States was fighting to win. The Vietcong were fighting for their lives. They would fight forever if necessary. This is what also happened when the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan. The Soviets were fighting to beat the Mujahideen. Mujahideen were fighting to stay alive, fighting for their very lives. Now when it comes to policy, you have to know what game you’re playing so you can play the right rules. And this became completely clear to me when the Soviets actually drove their tanks into Afghanistan and Zbigniew Brzezinski*, the National Security Advisor for President Carter, was called into the president’s office and the president asked him, “What is the policy of the United States?” And Brzezinski said, “The policy of the United States is to eject the Soviets.” That’s a finite goal. And almost as an off-handed comment, he said, “And if we can’t do that, will make it as expensive as possible for them to stay.” In other words, the United States accidentally had an infinite strategy. Which is not fixed in time and we don’t know exactly what it looks like, what we are trying to do is drain the enemy of the will and all of the resources to continue to play. And ten years later the Soviets drove their tanks out of Afghanistan, running out of the resources and the will to play. Now, you think about what happened when the Berlin wall came down (did the Stasi -the Secret East German Police really come down with it? Maybe?). We were in an infinite game, the Soviets and the United States. And when the Berlin wall came down, the United States and Soviets were in an infinite game, and again the United States had made perhaps one of the greatest policy blunders in the history of the 20th century. They had announced that they had won the game. They had “won the Cold War.” No, they didn’t. The other player dropped out because they ran out of the resources or the will to play. And the problem is that because they thought that they had won the war, they started acting like victors. And the United States imposed their will on the world for about eleven years. And as it turns out, the world didn’t like that too much. And, as what happens in all infinite contests, new players started to emerge. If you consider how the cold war existed, it really existed on 3 TENSIONS.
NUCLEAR TENSION — Both states had nuclear weapons that could end all life.
IDEOLOGICAL TENSION — One was an exporter of democracy and capitalism and the other was an exporter of Soviet-style communism.
ECONOMIC TENSION - {ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NOT INCLUDED IN LECTURE: Both the United States and Russia emerged as Super Powers after World War II. The United States started the Marshall Plan in 1947 which gave aid to European countries to help rebuild the devastation caused by the war but constant economic tensions and conflict between Russian and the United States were always felt. They were based in fundamental differences in economic morals and economic principles. Both countries were in competition for everything which also sounds a lot like a finite business game that lacks long-term vision because it was mostly a struggle for power and control over countries even if they didn’t benefit directly from them.}
Those 3 TENSIONS are what kept the COLD WAR alive and well. Not coincidentally; LIFE, LIBERTY, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. The only 3 things for which we will bear any burden and pay any price and fight forever to defend.
Now the NUCLEAR TENSION has been replaced by Pakistan, and North Korea, and maybe Iran.
The IDEOLOGICAL TENSION, Soviet-style communism, has been replaced with Islamic extremism.
The ECONOMIC TENSION, the Soviet Union is been replaced by China. We don’t fear nuclear war with China. But the point is, ALL 3 TENSIONS ARE ALIVE AND WELL. And you see the problem is, they all know who their enemy is but we don’t realize the Cold War 2.0 is happening. And we are still trying to decide which one is more important. Who is trying to win and beat all of these things and not realize that the game is infinite and not finite. The United States policy these days, is becoming of shorter and shorter-term which creates turmoil and chaos in strategy and how we present ourselves to the world. The easiest way to understand the game you’re in is when you have an opposing force. Another words, “NOT THAT.” Right? You want great leadership. You want someone to say what we stand for, but if you don’t’ have that, you get to say, “NOT THAT.” So, it’s really easy, the intelligence services, for example, during the Cold War, they fought like cats and dogs just like they fight now. But they could all agree on one thing; “NOT THAT.” And they work really well to combine their forces to face the Soviet Union. We don’t have a singular “NOT THAT” anymore. And so, we are all over the place. But all of our enemies have a singular “NOT THAT.” And that “NOT THAT” is us.
Ideally, we want to run all of our decisions through our values. These are what make us enduring. Our values are enduring and this is the foundation of an infinite contest. So, you consider up here is where our values lie. What I like to call the “y”= our values. These things are infinite. They’re enduring. (Infinitity symbol). Down here I have what I call the “What.” These are our interests. And our interests are finite. So, ideally what we want to do is run all of our decisions through our values and then through our interests. Let me show you what that looks like. Sometimes they go in our favor and sometimes they don’t.
For example, when the United States goes into a battlefield and we shoot a bad guy. We will take his injured body and bring him into our hospitals and we will risk American lives to bring him into our hospitals and use American doctors, American beds, American medicines, to nurse him back to health. THAT’S NOT IN OUR INTEREST, but the reason we do it is because it’s kind of who we are, it’s kind of what we do, it’s like our thing. Right?
When we make decisions based solely on our interests it looks like this. So, should we torture people? Now the reason the United States did it offshore (Guantanamo Bay) is because everybody kind of knew that wasn’t our thing because we had no problem with it. We just do it here (out of the territories of the United States). So, we hid it away because we knew it was uncomfortable because we know what our values are. So, what’s been happening in the world is we have been evaluating all of the things that have been going on by ignoring our values because we don’t realize we are in an infinite contest and we only look at our interests. So, we think about what should we do in Syria and we make a very good decision based on our interests in Syria and we make a Syrian decision. And what should we do in Crimea and what should we do with regards to Putin and what should we do with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan? And we are all over the place. And the problem is that when you pull back and take a look at the picture, NOBODY HAS ANY IDEA WHAT WE STAND FOR. American policy thus becomes confusing for our allies, who no longer trust us because we are no longer predictable. And it’s fantastic for our enemies because they can exploit it.
IDEALLY, what we do is run all our decisions through our values first, and though it may not always go our way, just like I said we make decisions all the time that aren’t always in our interests like bringing an injured bad guy and putting him in our hospitals. NOT IN OUR INTERESTS. But what that does is it makes us predictable. And it makes our allies trust us because they know what we stand for and they will either stand with us or they’ll stand against us. And together we will go through the infinite contest for as long as it takes. This is what we are in right now. The Cold War is alive and well and we will not help contribute to stabilizing the world until we start playing the game we are in instead of playing the game we are not in.”
It is important to note, in my opinion, the purveyors utilizing gangstalking with electronic targeted assaults and psychotronic torture are pitting a finite player (targeted individual) against an infinite player (purveyors of this technology) that causes the finite player (targeted individual) to suffer a quagmire. It is also important to recognize, in my opinion, the purveyors utilizing this strategy are utilizing a strategy of infinite warfare. The same strategy was employed during the Cold War and where no side emerges the winner. There are no winners and losers in Cold War. No one can lose the game, and so, we work to keep the game in play. In fact, because there are no winners and losers, the only thing a player can do is drop out when they run out of resources or run out of the will to continue playing the game. Because the game never ends, we can see a similar position emerge where, like the United States, the veiled purveyor of electronic targeting technology and psychotronic torture is sticking his/her nose into places where it doesn’t belong because he/she has failed to realize that he/she is not the victor and has also failed to run his decision through sound moral values first instead of going straight through to his/her capitalist interests. In addition to all of this, the purveyors of this technology, in lacking good leadership and sound moral values with which to run his/her decisions through, can only say, “NOT THAT.” And the “NOT THAT” IS the Targeted Individual.
- Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski was Zbigniew a Polish-American diplomat and political scientist. He served as a counselor to President Lyndon B. Johnson from 1966 to 1968 and was President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor from 1977 to 1981.
Sources:
