【推文】Yuri Bezmenov's Ghost - Game Theory Strategy of Subversion

連結

• 推文1 - x.com/Ne_pas_couvrir...

• 推文2 - x.com/Ne_pas_couvrir...

原文及個人翻譯

推文1

Mapping collective orientation & 5GW resilience globally, the 2025 US awkwardly straddles A and E, -fractured in spirit, loosely networked in form, & haunted by a fading memory of D(esque). Its collective telos is fading, yet legacy structures still offer some 5GW resilience.

在全球範圍內，該項目旨在研究集體方向和5GW（5th Generation Warfare / 第五代戰爭）技術的韌性。2025年的美國在A和E之間左右為難，-精神上分裂，形式上鬆散連接，並且被對D（類似）的逐漸消失的回憶所困擾。它的集體目標正在消退，但遺留結構仍然為5GW提供了一些韌性。

From a Game Theory POV
Atomised Individualism: Yields a low payoff due to its fragmented structure and susceptibility to 5GW’s narrative manipulation, making it an easy target for division into micro-tribes.

Fragmented Tribes: Offers a low payoff, as its localized cohesion fails to scale against 5GW threats, leading to deepened fractures and civil conflict under pressure.

Rigid Collectivism: Provides a medium payoff, leveraging high initial cohesion for resistance, but its payoff collapses sharply if the core telos is lost, triggering implosion.

Modular Collectivism: Achieves the highest payoff through a balanced strategy of high cohesion and adaptability, though this advantage plummets if the telos is lost, risking fracture.

Networked Coalitions: Delivers a high payoff via adaptable coordination, yet this is moderated by the risk of centralization or fragmentation if the telos falters, potentially drifting toward Rigid Collectivism.

從博弈論的角度來看：

• 原子化個人主義 (Atomised Individualism): 收益較低，因為其結構分散且容易受到5GW的敘事操縱，使其容易被分割成微型部落。

• 碎片化的部落 (Fragmented Tribes): 收益也較低，因為其地方性的凝聚力無法有效應對5GW的威脅，導致在壓力下產生更深的分裂和內亂。

• 僵化的集體主義 (Rigid Collectivism): 提供中等水平的收益，利用最初的高度凝聚力進行抵抗，但如果核心目標（telos）喪失，其收益將急劇下降，可能導致崩潰。

• 模組化集體主義 (Modular Collectivism): 通過平衡高凝聚力和適應性策略，實現最高的收益，但這種優勢在目標（telos）喪失時會迅速降低，存在分裂的風險。

• 網絡聯盟 (Networked Coalitions): 通過可適應的協調提供較高的收益，但這種收益受到中央集權或碎片化的風險的限制，如果目標（telos）不穩，可能轉向僵化的集體主義。

Teleology: Greek words telos ("end" or "purpose") and logos ("reason"). In this case, it means that this collective consciousness is actively summoned for a deliberate, forward-looking intention to reshape society toward an idealized end goal.

“Teleology”源自希臘語的兩個詞：“telos”（意為“終點”或“目的”）和“logos”（意為“理性”）。 在這種情況下，它意味著這種集體意識是被主動喚醒的，具有明確且面向未來的意圖，旨在將社會塑造成一個理想化的最終目標。

The game-theory strategy is to shift the out-group into a defection-prone equilibrium (Prisoner’s Dilemma). Meanwhile, the in-group maintains a high-trust coordination strategy (Stag Hunt) via dense networks & strong telos. Result: The out-group loses telos, fragments, dies.

博弈論策略是將外群推入容易背叛的平衡狀態（囚徒困境）。同時，內群通過緊密的網絡和強大的目標（telos）維持高信任度的協調策略（單角鹿遊戲）。 結果：外群失去目標（telos），分裂，消亡。

集體方向形態圖表

推文2

Let me "plain speak" this post & thread.
I'm describing a strategy based on game theory, which is just a way to figure out how people or groups make choices when their success hinges on what others do. It’s like playing poker or chess. Your move shifts the game, and their move shifts it back. The plan here is for one group, the "in-group," to stick together with a strong shared goal or purpose called a "telos." Think of telos as a unifying story or reason to exist, like a basketball team rallying to win the championship as one unit.

The in-group uses a "Stag Hunt" tactic. Imagine two hunters: they can team up to take down a big stag (needing trust and teamwork for a great reward) or go solo for a small hare (safer but less impressive). The Stag Hunt proves that teamwork pays off huge if everyone trusts each other to stick with the plan. The in-group builds that trust with tight connections and their strong telos, making them rock-solid and hard to break. In this game, their unity wins big, while a divided team (like the out-group) ends up with nothing, much like a basketball squad falling apart on the court.

Meanwhile, the in-group works to undermine a rival group, the "out-group," by trapping them in a "Prisoner’s Dilemma." Picture two people arrested and questioned separately: if both stay silent, they get a light penalty; if one talks and the other doesn’t, the talker goes free while the other takes the hit; if both talk, they both lose hard. It’s a setup where mistrust tears everything apart. The in-group’s trick is to keep their team tight while sowing doubt in the out-group, making them fragment, ditch their purpose, stop playing as a team, and collapse. It’s simple but effective, especially if the out-group doesn’t see it coming.

讓我用更通俗易懂的語言解釋這篇文章和帖子。 我描述的是一種基於博弈論的策略，博弈論只是一種分析人們或群體如何做出選擇的方法，當他們的成功取決於其他人的行為時。 這就像玩撲克或象棋。 你的行動會改變遊戲規則，而他們的行動也會反過來改變它。 這個計劃是讓一個群體，也就是“內圈”，團結一致，擁有一個強大的共同目標或目的，稱為“目標”（telos）。 可以把“目標”想像成一個統一的故事或存在的理由，就像一支籃球隊為了贏得冠軍而齊心協力一樣。

“內圈”使用一種叫做“單角鹿遊戲”的策略。 想像一下兩個獵人：他們可以合作捕殺一隻大鹿（需要信任和團隊合作才能獲得豐厚的回報），或者各自去捕獲一隻小兔子（更安全，但不太引人注目）。 “單角鹿遊戲”證明了如果每個人都相信彼此並堅持計劃，那麼團隊合作會帶來巨大的收益。 “內圈”通過緊密的聯繫和強大的目標來建立這種信任，使他們堅不可摧，難以瓦解。 在這個遊戲中，“內圈”的團結贏得勝利，而一個分裂的團隊（例如“外圈”）最終一無所有，就像一支籃球隊在球場上分崩離析一樣。

同時，“內圈”會努力削弱一個競爭對手群體，“外圈”，通過將其置於一種叫做“囚徒困境”的狀況中。 想像一下兩個被捕並分別接受訊問的人：如果他們都保持沉默，他們會受到較輕的懲罰；如果一個人說話而另一個人不說，那麼說話的人可以自由出去，而另一人則要承擔代價；如果他們都說話，他們都會遭受嚴厲的懲罰。 這是一種設置，其中不信任會摧毀一切。 “內圈”的伎倆是保持團隊的團結，同時在“外圈”中散播懷疑，使他們分裂、放棄目標、停止作為一個團隊行動，並最終崩潰。 這種方法簡單但有效，尤其是在“外圈”沒有意識到它時。

Just look at basketball: a cohesive team wipes the floor with a disjointed one. Now imagine secretly tricking the other basketball team to stop working together, and they don’t even know you’re doing it. You could win every time, even against stronger teams, because they’d be too busy not cooperating to put up a fight. Take it further. Imagine you trick them into fighting each other too! A well-coordinated high school basketball team could beat an NBA all-star team if those pros were arguing, refusing to pass, and playing against each other instead of as a unit. That’s the strategy here, and it works like a charm when the other side doesn’t see the trick coming.

就拿籃球來說：一個團結的隊伍會徹底擊敗一個鬆散的隊伍。 現在想像一下，你偷偷地欺騙了另一支籃球隊，讓他們停止合作，而且他們甚至不知道你在做什麼。 你可以每次都贏，即使是面對更強勁的隊伍，因為他們會太過於忙於不合作而無法有效地反擊。 把它延伸到更遠的地方。 想像一下，你欺騙了他們，讓他們互相爭吵！ 一支協調良好的高中籃球隊可以擊敗一支NBA全明星隊，前提是那些職業球員都在爭吵、拒絕傳球，並且互相對抗而不是作為一個整體來比賽。 這就是這裡的策略，當對方沒有意識到這個伎倆時，它就像一劑良藥一樣有效。

Back to the chart below. What it does is it breaks down how societies hold up or crumble based on their setup or type of teamwork, especially against 5GW. One type is "atomized individualism," where people act like lone wolves, each doing their own thing without a shared goal. This is sort of like atoms drifting apart or basketball players ignoring the team to shoot solo. Under 5GW pressure, the risk splitting into "micro-tribes" and they're very susceptible to falling for misinformation tricks. 5GW exploits these weaknesses. Just think of today’s divisive online content, often pushed on purpose to fracture society and stop people from playing as a team. That's what is going on.

The chart also shows that societies with a strong telos, like "modular collectivism," handle these mind-games better, scoring a high 5 for resilience is thanks to that unifying purpose, that strong telos. Modular collectivism means a society has a solid shared goal but lets people adapt locally, like tree branches growing differently yet staying part of the same trunk. This strength comes from unity, a strong telos that gives room to flex.

Right now, I would say that the US in 2025 is stuck between atomized individualism and a loose "networked coalitions" vibe, with its Cold War-era telos past fading fast. That’s a weak spot. Try defining an American purpose for 2025. It’s tough, right? That struggle is no accident; it’s part of a game theory strategy to subvert the US. A culture without a telos eventually withers and dies, and the loss of that telos was done on purpose, to beat America.

回到下面的圖表。 它分析了社會如何根據其結構或團隊合作類型而保持穩定或崩潰，尤其是在面對5GW的壓力下。 其中一種情況是「原子化個人主義」，在這種情況下，人們就像孤獨的狼一樣行動，每個人都做自己的事情，而沒有共同的目標。 這有點像原子分離，或者籃球運動員忽略團隊來獨自投籃。 在5GW的壓力下，他們有風險分裂成「微型部落」，並且很容易受到虛假資訊伎倆的影響。 5GW會利用這些弱點。 就像當今那些具有分裂性的線上內容一樣，這些內容通常是故意推送的，目的是爲了瓦解社會，阻止人們團結合作。 這就是正在發生的事情。

圖表還顯示，擁有強大「目標」的社會，例如「模組化集體主義」，能夠更好地應對這些心理遊戲，並且由於這種統一的目標而具有很高的韌性（5分）。 模組化集體主義意味著一個社會有一個堅實的共同目標，但允許人們在地方上進行調整，就像樹枝以不同的方式生長，但仍然是同一根樹幹的一部分。 這種力量來自於團結，一種強大的「目標」，它為靈活提供了空間。

目前，我認為2025年的美國正處於原子化個人主義和鬆散的「網路聯盟」狀態之間，其冷戰時期的「目標」正在迅速消失。 這就是一個弱點。 嘗試定義一個2025年的美國目標。 這很難，對吧？ 這種鬥爭並非偶然；它是瓦解美國的博弈論策略的一部分。 一個沒有「目標」的文化最終會衰落和死亡，而這個「目標」的喪失是故意的，目的是爲了擊敗美國。