The Basic Elements of Foul Game Play.
- A relational entanglements is put into place between the unsuspecting victim and the criminals used,
- An issue of danger is created. This issue has a variety of uses, but primary it is intended to make the victim intensely perceptive, and of course most particularly mentally. Depending on what is aimed at as the outcome of the game, this issue may or may not be made clear enough for an unsuspecting victim to comprehend. If a panic attack is what is wanted then the victim will be made aware of the danger but initially they will only be mildly apprehensive and maybe not even conscious enough of that.
- The third and a key element is the presented ideas. These ideas may hint at the problematic conditions created for the victim or something else entirely.
- Lastly we have the victim’s experience, and again that will range from a high on the one end of the scale to an intensely “bad experience” on the other. This of course is none other than their bodily reactivity but such reactivity is associated with the thoughts and they may be highly deceptive of the truth. For instance while the offender may use words that essentially threaten the victim (in order to force them to comply to their wishes), it might also be to create a “fall in love at first sight” experience, which means the bodily reactivity will be wrongly interpreted by the victim. In most foul games the biological problems created either hint at damage or death so become powerful means of gaining power and influence. Motive is at the heart of the matter, because such power and influence is used to manipulate and control the victim. It is equivalent to pointing a loaded gun at a person’s temples but without it being obvious. And it is important to also point out that the motive is not the same for all, for while the chief offender one particular motive, the rest of mob are involved for the high it affords them. Toxic people as I will explain later get a high from seeing the suffering that they cause or have helped cause to a victim. The biology however is the key to exposing the foul play. Understanding the biology is simple. You only need high school ordinary level education.
Element 1: Relational Entanglement.
Relationship and insight are the necessary arsenal to do another person physical harm indirectly. The very first step is to be able to present danger when all looks normal and more particularly when the chief offender is not present on the scene. To be able to “turn on the danger” like a light switch, at will, and at the same time make the scene appear normal so that the victim has no physical evidence to corroborate their feelings and emotional reactivity. To achieve this end the chief offender needs to have what are known as “gun-carrying individuals” to come onto the scene. These people will be seen but they will not be noticed for who they are. They will dress appropriately, act normally and carry on their business as if they are “just other people in the crowd” or on the street or whatever the case may be. To have the desired effect only related gun-carrying individuals will fit the bill. They need to be loosely related to the potential victim because it is through relationship that the victim will become sufficiently aware of their presence as to feel some fear. However such fear will be nebulous and maybe not conscious at all. The victim may simply suddenly feel a bit hot. The victim will not feel fear and certainly not intense fear until ideas of danger are presented. For ideas to have the desired effect they cannot be imaginary. They must depict a real situation. But to begin with the sole purpose of the fear reaction, the one the victim will not recognize, is to make them more perceptive. Remember fear makes the person more mentally perceptive, so in a sense it creates the fertile ground upon which the really nasty ideas may be sown and with the potential of instant results. So the very first step a primary offender will take is to relationally entangle the potential victim with the criminals who are going “to do the job”, which means to pose danger and create the initial fear reaction in the victim. So what is relational entanglement?
Relational entanglement is the merest, most trivial form of relationship. In order to achieve such an entanglement there needs to be certain conditions. These are as follows.
- The offenders need to be seen and become obvious to the victim. They must be seen or heard, they must in a sense be introduced but not in any formal sense.
- It must be given to the victim to understand, on a subconscious level that the offenders are related to or known by the chief offender, who is the person setting up such “a meeting”.
It is of great importance that the offenders are not in any way become memorable to the potential victim, so though they are seen or heard, they will not be recognized at some future time. The potential victim will not consciously remember them. To achieve this end the potential victim’s attention must be captured. They must be made to see the offenders but only momentarily and as strangers but they must not be seen to be doing anything out of the ordinary. The play needs to be “out in the open” and “in your face” but at the same time belie the truth. In this way at any subsequent time when the victim sees the offenders, they will not recognize them. So even if their suspicion is aroused and they look around at the other people in the crowd, and even if they see people that they may say they get “a bad feeling” from them, they will still gain no advantage. The aim of the game is of course to leave the victim feeling confused. So people who are highly intuitive may see “the strangers” and get “a bad feeling” from their presence, but they will be confounded as to why this is so. Indeed it can be very invalidating if they do have bad feelings and they cannot say why. And more particularly if they have others in their company to whom they may complain. They will be seen as being foolish or paranoid.
I have named these trivial relationships relational entanglements. Some controlling, manipulative people sardonically call this entanglement of the victim with the criminals as “an introduction” while others talk about “arranging a meeting”. Notice that their terminology sounds ordinary and does not arouse an unsuspecting person’s suspicions. Furthermore a person complaining about this sort of language, if they were to overhear it, which is highly unlikely, would also be seen as oversensitive or overly suspicious or as having “a wild imagination“ or in the jargon of psychiatrists as “misreading others” and even delusional and paranoid.
Though relational entanglements are trivial, yet they are not simple. These criminals are the chief offender’s henchmen and/or henchwomen, as the case may be. What has been effectively created is that the relationship with the primary offender is given an extension. It is no longer a one to one relationship between the chief offender and the victim but a one to many relationship. The chief offender occupies the position at the arrow head, while behind him there are many others. The victim is now unknowingly related to at least three or four others. As such it has been turned into a relationship of power. It gives the chief offender an unfair advantage, while at the same time creating a situation of seeming powerlessness and disadvantage for the victim, but only if the victim is unsuspecting of foul play. Such game play exploits the person’s insightful perception under conditions of danger, where direct mental perception or ESP is at a premium.
How is a relational entanglement created?
The chief offender undertakes the task of taking the unsuspecting victim into a public place on some ‘normal occasion’, as for instance to have some lunch or dinner or some coffee etc. So here again the toxic people use “the normal approach”. The public place used to create “the meeting” must be a place in which other people can legitimately approach and pass by anyone and everyone.
Of course the unsuspecting victim does not know that anything has been pre-arranged. Nothing appears out of place. The chief offender though has pre-arranged for the would-be-offenders to make an appearance, but they will appear as no more than strangers, “just people in the crowd” who only momentarily stand out of the crowd but do nothing out of the ordinary.
To effect a relational entanglement these strangers must attract the victim’s attention momentarily and in the most natural way. For instance one of them may call out suddenly and a litter louder than expected to the other but as if they have just seen each other. They act as would anyone that has just noticed a friend and wants to alert them to their presence. And of course in what is played out, one of these people will at that very moment ‘just happen’ to be passing nearby the table of the chief offender and the potential victim, who may be a man and his wife or his girlfriend or indeed the other way around. There are toxic women who play these same “nasty tricks” on their spouses, boyfriends or friends, workmates etc, In any case the sudden, loud call that is make is sufficient to make an unsuspecting person look up momentarily and notice them having been startled by the sudden noise. The two are dressed normally and behave normally so though the unsuspecting person notices them they do not see anything strange. At such a point their partner may present an idea such as “what have we here” or “who’s that?” The ideas presented must seem natural observations of whatever is going on so while they are presented to the potential victim by the person they are with and trust, the chief offender, they will persuasively seem to be normal thinking because they are related to what is going on around them. And notice here there is generally no need of fear to make the person perceptive because the close and trusted relationship is strong enough to make the person perceptive in the presence of the both parties. However to enhance the effects and indeed to destroy the potential victim’s discriminative ability a low grade fear can be used and it is cunningly put into place. A sudden call creates startle and under some circumstances even fright. These are not fear but the reaction is very much the same, but of far less intensity. However despite the difference in intensity the person will still become highly perceptive and not discriminative until they have gained the information they need to reason.
At this time ideas may be verbalized because they appear to logically describe what is seen. “Aren’t they a noisy lot” can be said to draw more attention to the scene and the people in it and such a comment will not make the potential victim suspicious. In the illustration above the action is indistinguishable from that of any two mates who have just seen each other in a public place. Even words that are directives can and are used. For example “know them?” This is made to sound somewhat like a question but the tone is just a bit off pitch so that the would-be question becomes a statement of “know them!” i.e., “make a record of them in your mind”. Another way as I have seen is for the chief offender to ask of the victim who looks up at the strangers “do you know them?” This comment is doubly deceptive. On the one hand it is a comment that one would expect is said by someone who is totally ignorant of the strangers. However here again the words can be cleaverly made to be a directive with just a tiny change in pitch. So that they may be made to be “do you.. know them”. “Do you” is a way of instructing the potential fictim to do something. And the following then become the action to be done.. i.e., “know them”. So the comment can be made to creates a stronger relational entanglement. And it can still leave the chief offender appearing to be an innocent party in the eyes of the victim.
Having looked up then, to see what the sudden noise was all about, the potential victim will soon lose interest and go on with what they were doing, eating, drinking or talking to their partner and /or any other friends beside them. What the potential victim doesn’t know is that these strangers are known to their partner sitting beside them.
The situation is very different to that of a friend that they may be introduced to them while at the bar and who sits and chats with them for a time. There the woman has not only had her interest captured but her attention held for some time as well. So while she will have only a short term memory of the two that called out to each other, she will remember the new friend who sat with them and talked with them so has interacted with them for a lot longer.
When it comes to long-term memory, the two that called out to each other will not be remembered, while the friend who sat with them will be remembered. This does not means she will have no more knowledge of the two who called out to one another. She will and much more strongly than if they really were strangers because she now bares a relationship with them, which is not simple and subconscious. This relationship is complex because it is associated with the chief offender and involves presented ideas as I described above that act as directives. Some of these presented ideas can be utilized later by the offenders and yet be so nebulous and /or natural that they not be noticed in her mind. Ideas such as “what’s all this about?” put into place at the time of the “introduction”, may subsequently be presented to her and thus reintroduced in mind and yet appear as “stray thoughts”. They may also be mistakenly attributed to something else in their environment subsequently. So the villains can rekindle enough memory for the victim to become more aware of them but still not consciously aware. You will find as you go about your daily life, in contrast to the exercises, that when there are no “influences”, such as related people presenting ideas, then there are no ideas that “pop into your mind” as you observe your surroundings. We normally just observe, we don’t have a running commentary of what we observe. There are no thoughts unless you see something that causes you to think about it purposely. Almost all thoughts that are not part of active reasoning, are the result of influences of one sort or another, and the greatest influences are other people.
Two real strangers who call out to each other before the woman in our example in a public place may look the same as the seeming stranger but being real strangers they bare no relevance to her. They are not related to her by way of a third party. Both relationship are trivial. However a relationship with a real stranger is passing, whereas that which is contrived bears significance because it is associated with a trusted third party, (in this example “the man in her life”) AND is not passing as it will have “a future” so to speak. When the potential victim sees them again such an occurrence will be a part of foul game play. And while the victim becomes aware of their presence they will not realize it. This awareness only comes about in situations which are highly relevant; as for instance if they approach while armed and holding an intent to do harm AND at the instigation of the chief offender, who is the link between them. When the criminals pose danger, the person targeted will gain the merest awareness of their presence for several reasons. On such a subsequent occassion these people will not act strange and will in fact bend over backwards to blend in as much as possible with the people around them. However they are not strangers because they bear a complex though trivial relationship with the victim through the chief offender. The unsuspecting person targeted does not consciously remember or recognize them but they are relationally entangled so their insightful perception is triggered. Someone we see momentarily in a crowd one day, is not recognized the next day or even a few hours later because the attention that was paid them was very short-lived and because the significance of the strangers is not known. I labour this point but I also know that it is can only be appreciated by someone else when they repeat the foul play as an exercise over and over again with many different people. In those exercises we, as the subject must be unsuspecting of what is going on. Only when we see how we become apprehensive with no visible evidence can we begin to appreciate the significance of relational entanglement. A person in the know will have a great advantage but even then they must not allow things to go past them that are odd. We are often persuaded to gloss over something because there doesn’t seem to be any significance but we need to learn to trust our instinct and not the appearances, nor other people’s insistance that it was nothing, because nine times out of ten such people are game players. A knowledgeable person is not in the same boat as the person who is completely ignorant of what is being played out, but just the same they must not allow things they notice in passing, go past them without note. It is better to be over cautious than maltreated.
There are many and very crafty ways of forging a relational entanglement and each of them does one simple thing. It creates an association in the victim’s mind between the strangers and their spouse or friend or workmate or whoever it is that is the chief offender -the person seeking power and influence over them.
If the criminals are a decent distance away from the victim then they may be armed at the time of the introduction. This creates a stronger impression but still one that does not make them memorable for the very reason that they are heard, not seen. However under such circumstances a suggestion may be given to the victim. And let me say if the victim asks questions the offender will promptly call the person paranoid and as “reading too much into everything”, that they are oversensitive and so on. And these accusations are often said loudly to drown the other out or said forcefully and authoritatively in order to overcome the other’s reason. And it is here that the medical industry plays a key role because medical misinformation is the very ground upon which an accusation of paranoia can be made and used against the victim successfully and forcibly by the offenders themselves.
Relational entanglement is the diametrically opposite situation to double blinding, which medical science insists upon as a standard no less, in testing human extrasensory perception. They themselves introduced double blinding to get rid of a patient’s “sightedness” and that is not the sightedness that they have owing to a pair of functional eyes but the sightedness that they gain through relationship –sightedness that is extrasensory!
It is impossible to believe that the medicos just don’t understand the issue. They are not unintelligent; they belong to the top 2% of the intellectual elite of the world’s population. Relational distancing or doubling blinding destroys ESP because it takes away relationship. Relational entanglement on the other hand strongly enhances ESP. It helps make a person more sighted, much more so than what is seen even in single blinded drug trials. The reason is that there is not only the relationship that exists between the chief offender and the victim but an additional relationship is created with the other toxic offenders, often criminals that are used to “do the job”. Double blinding would mean that even the relationship between the chief offender and the victim in an experiment would be non-existent. To do the experiments properly both situations need to be examined. Lay people need to observe for themselves that double blinding in ESP experiments “disposes of” the very means, by which stress and disease are brought into being. This means that lay people can see and appreciate for themselves that scientists have an audacity calling what are really sabotaged experiments, as scientific!