Game Theory

[jai_mann]

Game theory is not some thing that I am extremely familiar with, but I have read superficially about it. I just wanted to ask what others on here know about it and if they have any good references. I also think it would be good if more of us dig into this topic and expose it. I'll do my part, as I can. These timed lone gunman attacks and suicide bombings are highly tied in with this game theory and it appears to be at the core of what is driving jewish/israeli behaviors.

If this theory becomes more widely disseminated it would take things to another level with every one who is already jew wise, and it might possibly bring in others as they see the PATTERNS that fit within. It would certainly hurt them if game theory became, even superficially, as widely known as the 9/11 psyop issue. If the central mechanism used for planning psyops becomes known and understood by the non-jews, then the non-jews can also act accordingly to deal with scenario's that the jews are attempting to force upon us.

[SPECTEC]

What is game theory?  I've never heard of this before...could you give a brief summary please?

[Whaler]

The Ugly Truth Podcast Nov 30, 2010
Jeff Gates of http://www.criminalstate.com joins the program to discuss the latest wikileaks controversy as an Israeli intelligence operation aimed at getting the US involved in war with Iran.

http://media11.podbean.com/pb/42c636f11 ... s1mp3a.mp3



WikiLeaks -- More Israeli Game Theory Warfare?

http://www.payvand.com/news/10/dec/1010 ... um=twitter

"The United States is the real victim of Wikileaks. It's an action aimed at discrediting them." Franco Frattini, Foreign Minister of Italy

The impact of the WikiLeaks release of diplomatic cables fits the behavior profile of those well versed in game theory warfare.

When Israeli mathematician Robert J. Aumann received the 2005 Nobel Prize in economic science for his work on game theory, he conceded, "the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel" has turned "Israel into the leading authority in this field."

The candor of this Israeli-American offered a rare insight into an enclave long known for waging war from the shadows. Israel's most notable success to date was "fixing" the intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq in pursuit of a geopolitical agenda long sought by Tel Aviv

When waging intelligence wars, timing is often the critical factor for game-theory war planners. The outcome of the WikiLeaks release suggests a psy-ops directed at the U.S.

Why now? Tel Aviv was feeling pressure to end its six-decade occupation of Palestine. With this release, its foot-dragging on the peace process was displaced with talk of an attack on Iran.

While the U.S. bore the brunt of the damage, the target was global public opinion. To maintain the plausibility of The Clash of Civilizations, a focus must be maintained on Iran as a credible Evil Doer.

With fast-emerging transparency, Israel and pro-Israelis have been identified as the source of the intelligence that took coalition forces to war in Iraq. Thus the need to shift attention off Tel Aviv.

WikiLeaks may yet succeed in that mission.

Foreseeable Futures

Game theory war planning aims to create outcomes that are predictable-within an acceptable range of probabilities. That's why Israeli war planners focus on gaining traction for a plausible narrative and then advancing that storyline step by gradual step.

For the Zionist state to succeed with its expansionist agenda, Iran must remain at center stage as an essential villain in a geopolitical morality play pitting the West against Islamo Fascists.

To displace facts with false beliefs-as with belief in the intelligence that induced the invasion of Iraq-momentum must be maintained for the storyline. Lose the plot (The Clash) and peace might break out. And those deceived may identify the deceiver.

Thus the timing of this latest WikiLeaks release. Its goal: to have us believe that it is not Tel Aviv but Washington that is the forefront of geopolitical duplicity and a source of Evil Doing.

Intelligence wars rely on mathematical models to anticipate the response of those targeted. With game theory algorithms, reactions become foreseeable-within an acceptable range of probabilities.

Control enough of the variables and outcomes become a mathematical inevitability.

The WikiLeaks Motive

Was the reaction to this latest WikiLeaks foreseeable? With exquisite timing, the U.S. was discredited with an array of revelations that called into question U.S. motives and put in jeopardy U.S. relations worldwide.

As the Italian Foreign Minister summarized: "The news released by WikiLeaks will change diplomatic relations between countries."

The hard-earned trust of the Pakistanis disappeared overnight. Attempts to engage Iran were set back. The overall effect advanced The Clash storyline. If Washington could so badly misread North Korean intentions, then why is the U.S. to be trusted when it comes to a nuclear Iran?

This Wiki-catalyzed storyline pushed Israel off the front page in favor of Iran.

Even U.S. detainees at Guantanamo are again at issue, reigniting that shameful spectacle as a provocation for extremism and terror. U.S. diplomats will now be suspected of spying and lying. What nation can now trust Americans to maintain confidences?

In short, the risks increased for everyone.

Except Israel.

Should Israel launch an attack on Iran, Tel Aviv can cite WikiLeaks as its rationale. Though an attack would be calamitous from a human, economic and financial perspective, even that foreseeable outcome would be dwarfed by the enduring hatred that would ensue.

That too is foreseeable-from a game theory perspective of those marketing The Clash.

The effect of the U.S. invasion of Iraq was predictable. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia foresaw it, noting simply that the U.S. invasion would "give Iraq to Iran as a gift on a golden platter."

With the elimination of Sunni leader Saddam Hussein, the numerically dominant Shiites of Iraq were drawn into the political orbit of the Shiite-dominant Iran.

Game theorists focus their manipulation of affairs on their control of key variables. Then events take on a life all their own. The impact of this discrediting release was wide-ranging and fully foreseeable.

A Mossad case officer explained Israel's success at waging war by way of deception: "Once the orchestra starts to play, we just hum along."

These, after all, are the leading authorities in the field.

NEO-CON JEWS AND THE WAR IN IRAQ
http://www.wake-up-america.net/NEO-CON% ... 20IRAQ.htm

Who does the War in Iraq really help?  Who sits on the sidelines without casualties while Americans bleed and die to fight their enemy?  Israel.  Look beneath surface reasons for the War in Iraq and you will find the Jews and the Christian Zionists. Look for who manufactured the rationale for the war and you will find neo-con (neo-conservative) Jews who, as Patrick Buchanan said "have a passionate attachment to a nation not their own" and Christian Zionists.  We did not need a third war and the war in Iraq is just starting.  The average insurgency lasts 9 years.  At this writing we are in year three.  Then there is the War on Terror and the war in Afghanistan.    
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ethnocentrism of the neocons has enabled them to create highly organized, cohesive, and effective ethnic networks. Neoconservatives have also exhibited the high intelligence necessary for attaining eminence in the academic world, in the elite media and think tanks, and at the highest levels of government. They have aggressively pursued their goals, not only in purging more traditional conservatives from their positions of power and influence, but also in reorienting US foreign policy in the direction of hegemony and empire. Neoconservatism also illustrates the central theme of the second article in this series: In alliance with virtually the entire organized American Jewish community, neoconservatism is a vanguard Jewish movement with close ties to the most extreme nationalistic, aggressive, racialist and religiously fanatic elements within Israel.

Kevin MacDonald Understanding Jewish Influence

[Whaler]

 :geek:  :ugeek:



Here is a carefully crafted Jew Psyop...Trying to get Americans to associate gun grabbers with the Nazis and Hitler. jEWS grab guns and slaughter helpless people...it's what they are famous for but these lying yids are creating a false historical narrative. This is along the lines of game theory.

http://www.payvand.com/news/10/dec/1010 ... um=twitter

Game theory war planning aims to create outcomes that are predictable-within an acceptable range of probabilities. That's why Israeli war planners focus on gaining traction for a plausible narrative and then advancing that storyline step by gradual step.

...so, Americans getting angry about the gov't/media trying to take away their guns is inevitable. Jews are conceding this....that ship has sailed. An acceptable narrative for this is: to blame Hitler and non Jewish entities and head fake the goyim into believing that Jews have nothing to do with trying to take their firearms.

An unacceptable narrative for the Jews is: that Jews are historically gun grabbers and at the center of anti-2nd amendment laws and propaganda in America. If Americans start to think this then it could have a disastrous result for American Jews and Israel.



Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945
http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard ... itler.html

by William L. Pierce

A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that the National Socialist government of Germany under Adolf Hitler did not permit the private ownership of firearms. Totalitarian governments, they have been taught in their high school civics classes, do not trust their citizens and do not dare permit them to keep firearms. Thus, one often hears the statement, "You know, the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was outlaw firearms," or, "The first thing Hitler did in Germany was round up all the guns."

One can understand why many American gun owners want to believe this. They see in the current effort of their own government to take away their right to keep and bear arms a limitation of an essential element of their freedom and a move toward tyranny, and they want to characterize the gun-grabbers in the most negative way they can. Adolf Hitler has been vilified continuously for the past 60 years or so by the mass media in America, and certainly no politician or officeholder wants to be compared with him. If the gun-confiscation effort can be portrayed convincingly as something of which Hitler would have approved, it will have been effectively tarred.

This identification of the inclination to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms with National Socialism and Adolf Hitler has been strengthened recently by clever magazine advertisements which show Hitler with his arm outstretched in a Roman salute under a heading: "All in favor of gun control raise your right hand." A Jewish group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), quite noisy for its size, has been especially zealous in promoting the idea that the current gun-control effort in America has its roots in Germany during the Hitler period. This group has gone so far as to claim in several articles published in popular magazines read by firearms enthusiasts that the current restrictive legislation being proposed by the U.S. government is modeled on a gun-control statute enacted by Germany's National Socialist government: the German Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) of March 18, 1938.

Again, one can understand the motivation of the JPFO. Many non-Jewish firearms owners are well aware that the movement to restrict their rights is led and promoted primarily by Jews, and anti-Jewish feeling has been growing among them. They know that the controlled news media, which are almost unanimously in favor of abridging or abolishing the Second Amendment, are very much under the influence of Jews, and they know that the most vocal anti-gun legislators in the Congress also are Jews. It is natural for a group such as the JPFO to mount a damage- control effort and attempt to prevent anti-Jewish feeling from becoming even stronger among gun owners. Their strategy is to deflect the blame from their kinsmen in the media and the government and direct it onto their most hated enemies, the National Socialists -- or at least to create enough smoke to obscure the facts and keep the gun-owning public confused.

Unfortunately for those who would like to link Hitler and the National Socialists with gun control, the entire premise for such an effort is false. German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had been enacted by the government preceding his: a left-center government which had contained a number of Jews.

It is not just that the National Socialist firearms legislation was the opposite of what it has been claimed to have been by persons who want to tar modern gun-grabbers with the "Nazi" brush: the whole spirit of Hitler's government was starkly different from its portrayal by America's mass media. The facts, in brief, are these:

    * The National Socialist government of Germany, unlike the government in Washington today, did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had. Unlike American presidents, he did not have to wear body armor and have shields of bulletproof glass in front of him whenever he spoke in public. At public celebrations he rode standing in an open car as it moved slowly through cheering crowds. Communists made several attempts to assassinate him, and his government stamped down hard on communism, virtually wiping it out in Germany. Between upright, law-abiding German citizens and Adolf Hitler, however, there was a real love affair, with mutual trust and respect.

 

    * The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self- reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was utterly alien to National Socialism. In the German universities, where National Socialism gained its earliest footholds and which later became its strongest bastions, dueling was an accepted practice. Although the liberal-Jewish governments in Germany after the First World War attempted to ban dueling, it persisted illegally until it was again legalized by the National Socialists. Fencing, target shooting, and other martial arts were immensely popular in Germany, and the National Socialists encouraged young Germans to become proficient in these activities, believing that they were important for the development of a man's character.

 

    * Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany in 1928, five years before the National Socialists gained power. Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Five years later his government got around to rewriting the gun law enacted a decade earlier by his predecessors, substantially amel ior a ting it in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years; and provisions restricting the amount of ammunition or the number of firearms an individual could own were dropped). Hitler's government may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but the National Socialists had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. Again, the firearms law enacted by Hitler's government enhanced the rights of Germans to keep and bear arms; no new restrictions were added, and many pre-existing restrictions were relaxed or eliminated.

 

    * At the end of the Second World War, American GIs in the occupying force were astounded to discover how many German civilians owned private firearms. Tens of thousands of pistols looted from German homes by GIs were brought back to the United States after the war. In 1945 General Eisenhower ordered all privately owned firearms in the American occupation zone of Germany confiscated, and Germans were required to hand in their shotguns and rifles as well as any handguns which had not already been stolen. In the Soviet occupation zone German civilians were summarily shot if they were found in possession of even a single cartridge.

 

    * Jews, it should be noted, were not Germans, even if they had been born in Germany. The National Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic terms, and under Hitler Jews were not accorded full rights of citizenship. National Socialist legislation progressively excluded Jews from key professions: teaching, the media, the practice of law, etc. The aim was not only to free German life from an oppressive and degenerative Jewish influence, but to persuade Jews to emigrate. The German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, specifically excluded Jews from manufacturing or dealing in firearms or munitions, but it did not exclude them from owning or bearing personal firearms. The exclusion of Jews from the firearms business rankled them as much as any other exclusion, and in their typically ethnocentric fashion they have misrepresented the law involved as an anti-gun law in an effort to cast their enemies in a bad light.

It should be noted in passing that the restrictions placed on Jews by the National Socialists had the intended effect: between 1933 and 1939 two-thirds of the Jews residing in Germany emigrated, reducing the Jewish population of the country from 600,000 when Hitler became Chancellor in 1933 to 200,000 at the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. Jews in the United States, looking at this period from their own narrowly focused viewpoint, have described these peacetime years of the National Socialist government as a time of darkness, terror, and regression, whereas for the German people it was a time of hope, joy, and spiritual and material renewal.

Much the same type of distortion is seen in the portrayal of the United States in the early 1950s: the so-called "McCarthy Era." Senator Joseph McCarthy (Republican, Wisconsin) used his position as chairman of the Senate's Government Operations Committee to expose the widespread communist infiltration of the U.S. government and other U.S. institutions which had taken place during the Second World War. A substantial majority of the communists who were dragged reluctantly out into the light of day by his efforts were Jews. As a result, the controlled media always have portrayed the period as one of terror and repression, when everyone was frightened of Senator McCarthy's "witch-hunt." Of course, it was nothing of the sort to non-Jewish Americans, who were not intimidated in the least. History viewed through a Jewish lens -- i.e., through media controlled by Jews -- always is distorted in a way corresponding to Jewish interests and concerns.

Both the German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, enacted by the National Socialists, and the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, which was enacted by an anti-National Socialist government, are given below in full, first in facsimile and then in English translation. A little background information first, however, may help the reader to understand their significance.

After Germany's defeat in the First World War (a defeat in which Germany's Jews played no small part, demoralizing the home front with demonstrations and other subversive activity much as they did in America during the Vietnam war), the Kaiser abdicated, and liberals and leftists seized control of the government in 1918. Hitler, recovering in a military hospital from a British poison-gas attack which had blinded him temporarily, made the decision to go into politics and fight against the traitors he felt were responsible for Germany's distress.

The tendency of Germany's new rulers after the First World War was much the same as it is for the liberals in America today: they promoted cosmopolitanism, internationalism, and egalitarianism. By 1923 economic conditions in Germany had become catastrophic, and there was much public unrest. The communists had made major inroads into the labor movement and were a growing threat to the country.

Hitler had indeed gone into politics, and his National Socialists battled the communists in the streets of Germany's cities and gradually came to be seen by many patriotic Germans in the working class and the middle class as the only force which could save Germany from a communist takeover and total ruin. Hitler's National Socialists continued to win recruits and gain strength during the 1920s. The communists, with aid from the Soviet Union, also continued to grow. The political situation became increasingly unstable as the government lost popular support.

The government's response was to substantially tighten up restrictions on the rights of German citizens to keep and bear arms. The Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, was the most substantial effort in this regard. This law was enacted by a left-center government hostile to the National Socialists (the government was headed by Chancellor Wilhelm Marx and consisted of a coalition of Socialists, including many Jews, and Catholic Centrists).

Five years later, in 1933, the National Socialists were in power, Hitler headed the government, and the communist threat was crushed decisively. The National Socialists began undoing the social and economic damage done by their predecessors. Germany was restored to full employment, degeneracy and corruption were rooted out, Jews and their collaborators were removed from one facet of national life after another, and the German people entered a new era of national freedom, health, and prosperity.

Finally, in 1938, the National Socialist government got around to enacting a new firearms law to replace the one enacted by their opponents ten years earlier. The highlights of the 1938 law, especially as it applied to ordinary citizens rather than manufacturers or dealers, follow:

    * Handguns may be purchased only on submission of a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), which must be used within one year from the date of issue. Muzzle- loading handguns are exempted from the permit requirement. [The 1928 law had required a permit for the purchase of long guns as well, but the National Socialists dropped this requirement.]

 

    * Holders of a permit to carry weapons (Waffenschein) or of a hunting license do not need a Weapons Acquisition Permit in order to acquire a handgun.

 

    * A hunting license authorizes its bearer to carry hunting weapons and handguns.

 

    * Firearms and ammunition, as well as swords and knives, may not be sold to minors under the age of 18 years. [The age limit had been 20 years in the 1928 law.]

 

    * Whoever carries a firearm outside of his dwelling, his place of employment, his place of business, or his fenced property must have on his person a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein). A permit is not required, however, for carrying a firearm for use at a police-approved shooting range.

 

    * A permit to acquire a handgun or to carry firearms may only be issued to persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit. In particular, a permit may not be issued to:
            1. persons under the age of 18 years;
            2. legally incompetent or mentally retarded persons;
            3. Gypsies or vagabonds;
            4. persons under mandatory police supervision [i.e., on parole] or otherwise temporarily without civil rights;
            5. persons convicted of treason or high treason or known to be engaged in activities hostile to the state;
            6. persons who for assault, trespass, a breach of the peace, resistance to authority, a criminal offense or misdemeanor, or a hunting or fishing violation were legally sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than two weeks, if three years have not passed since the term of imprisonment.

       
    * The manufacture, sale, carrying, possession, and import of the following are prohibited:
            1. "trick" firearms, designed so as to conceal their function (e.g., cane guns and belt-buckle pistols);
            2. any firearm equipped with a silencer and any rifle equipped with a spotlight;
            3. cartridges with .22 caliber, hollow-point bullets.
            That is the essence. Numerous other provisions of the law relate to firearms manufacturers, importers, and dealers; to acquisition and carrying of firearms by police, military, and other official personnel; to the maximum fees which can be charged for permits (3 Reichsmark); to tourists bringing firearms into Germany; and to the fines and other penalties to be levied for violations.

The requirements of "trustworthiness" and of proof of need when obtaining a permit are troubling, but it should be noted that they were simply carried over from the 1928 law: they were not formulated by the National Socialists. Under the National Socialists these requirements were interpreted liberally: a person who did not fall into one of the prohibited categories listed above was considered trustworthy, and a statement such as, "I often carry sums of money," was accepted as proof of need.

The prohibitions of spotlight-equipped rifles and hollow-point .22 caliber ammunition were based on considerations that the former were unsporting when used for hunting, and the latter were inhumane.

Now read the German firearms laws for yourself, either in the original German exactly as they were published by the German government in the Reichsgesetzblatt or in the complete English translations which are provided here. If you want to skip over most of the legal gobbledygook and go directly to the most pertinent part of the National Socialist Firearms Law -- the part pertaining to the purchase, ownership, and carrying of firearms by private citizens -- turn to page 35 (Part IV of the Law). Note, as already mentioned above, that two separate and distinct types of permits are referred to: a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), required only for purchasing a handgun; and a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein), required for carrying any firearm in public. Interestingly enough, as also mentioned above, a hunting license could take the place of both these permits.

When you have read the two laws reproduced here, you will understand that it was Hitler's enemies, not Hitler, who should be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today. Then as now it was the Jews, not the National Socialists, who wanted the people's right of self- defense restricted. You will understand that those who continue to make the claim that Hitler was a gun-grabber are either ignorant or dishonest. And you will understand that it was not until 1945, when the communist and democratic victors of the Second World War had installed occupation governments to rule over the conquered Germans that German citizens were finally and completely denied the right to armed self-defense.

[youtube:xijh24a0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8yiQBkif04[/youtube]xijh24a0]

[mchawe]

http://media11.podbean.com/pb/42c636f11 ... s1mp3a.mp3

When I try this link, I just get the words "410 Gone"
Can I get it anywhere else ?

[Whaler]

http://media11.podbean.com/pb/42c636f11 ... s1mp3a.mp3

When I try this link, I just get the words "410 Gone"
Can I get it anywhere else ?

hmm...it appears the mp3 link is down.


PLAYLIST - Wikileaks Israeli Intel Operation Jeff Gates - Mark Glenn by o1OpTiMuS1o
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?a ... feature=iv

[youtube:3oi06vht]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iehF5vjc5tA[/youtube]3oi06vht]

[youtube:3oi06vht]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-d57Hh0oyM[/youtube]3oi06vht]

[youtube:3oi06vht]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNMVovKDjw0[/youtube]3oi06vht]

[SPECTEC]

Awesome...thanks for posting.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Israeli MO: Game theory, false flag terrorism, agent provocateuring, Hegelian dialecting...

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Here's another grandfather of Game Theory besides Nash. It is actually popular in Business courses these days :

------------------------
Robert John Aumann

Robert John Aumann (Hebrew name: ישראל אומן - Yisrael Aumann, born June 8, 1930) is an Israeli-American mathematician and a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences. He is a professor at the Center for the Study of Rationality in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel. He also holds a visiting position at Stony Brook University and is one of the founding members of the Center for Game Theory in Economics at Stony Brook.

Aumann received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 2005 for his work on conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis. He shared the prize with Thomas Schelling.


Early years

Aumann was born in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, and fled to the United States with his family in 1938, two weeks before the Kristallnacht pogrom. He attended the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School, a yeshiva high school in New York City. He graduated from the City College of New York in 1950 with a B.Sc. in Mathematics. He received his M.Sc. in 1952, and his Ph.D. in Mathematics in 1955, both from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His doctoral dissertation, Asphericity of Alternating Linkages, concerned knot theory. His advisor was George Whitehead, Jr. In 1956 he joined the Mathematics faculty of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and is currently a visiting leading professor at Stony Brook University since 1989.

Scientific contribution

Aumann at a meeting in 2008.

Aumann's greatest contribution was in the realm of repeated games, which are situations in which players encounter the same situation over and over again.

Aumann was the first to define the concept of correlated equilibrium in game theory, which is a type of equilibrium in non-cooperative games that is more flexible than the classical Nash equilibrium. Furthermore, Aumann has introduced the first purely formal account of the notion of common knowledge in game theory. He collaborated with Lloyd Shapley on the Aumann-Shapley value. He is also known for his agreement theorem, in which he argues that under his given conditions, two Bayesian rationalists with common prior beliefs cannot agree to disagree.[1]

Aumann and Maschler used Game Theory also to analyze Talmudic dilemmas.[2] They were able to solve the mystery about the "division problem", a long-time dilemma of explaining the Talmudic rationale in dividing the heritage of a late husband to his three wives, depending on the worth of the heritage compared to its original worth.[3] The article in that matter was dedicated to a son of Aumann, Shlomo, who was killed during the 1982 Lebanon War while serving as a tank gunner in the Israel Defense Forces's armored corps.

These are some of the themes of Aumann's Nobel lecture, named "War and Peace":[4]

   1. War is not irrational, but must be scientifically studied in order to be understood, and eventually conquered;
   2. Repeated game study de-emphasizes the "now" for the sake of the "later";
   3. Simplistic peacemaking can cause war, while arms race, credible war threats and mutually assured destruction can reliably prevent war.

Political views

Aumann is a member in the Professors for a Strong Israel (PSI), a right-wing political group. Aumann opposed the disengagement from Gaza in 2005 claiming it is a crime against Gush Katif settlers and a serious threat to the security of Israel. Aumann draws on a case in game theory called the Blackmailer Paradox to demonstrate that giving land to the Arabs is strategically foolish based on the mathematical theory.[5] By presenting an unyielding demand, the Arab states force Israel to "yield to blackmail due to the perception that it will leave the negotiating room with nothing if it is inflexible.[5]

As a result of his political views, and his use of his research to justify them, the decision to give him the Nobel prize was criticized in the European press. A petition to cancel his prize garnered signatures from 1,000 academics worldwide.[6]

In a speech to a religious Zionist youth movement, Bnei Akiva, Aumann claimed that Israel is in 'deep trouble'. He revealed his belief that the anti-Zionist Satmar Jews might have been right in their condemnation of the original Zionist movement. "I fear the Satmars were right." he said, and quoted a verse: "Unless the Lord builds a house, its builders toil on it in vain." (Psalm 127) Aumann feels that the historical Zionist establishment failed to transmit its message to its successors, because it was secular. The only way that Zionism can survive, according to Aumann, is if it has a religious basis.[7]

In 2008, Aumann joined the new political party Ahi led by Effi Eitam and Yitzhak Levy.[8]

Torah codes controversy

Aumann has entered the controversy of Bible codes research. In his position as both a religious Jew and a man of science, the codes research holds special interest to him. He has partially vouched for the validity of the "Great Rabbis Experiment" (see bible code article) by Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips, and Yoav Rosenberg, which was published in Statistical Science. Aumann not only arranged for Rips to give a lecture on Torah codes in the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, but sponsored the Witztum-Rips-Rosenberg paper for publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The Academy requires a member to sponsor any publication in its Proceedings; the paper was turned down however.[citation needed]

In 1996, a committee consisting of Robert J. Aumann, Dror Bar-Natan, Hillel Furstenberg, Isaak Lapides, and Rips, was formed to examine the results that had been reported by H.J. Gans regarding the existence of "encoded" text in the bible foretelling events that took place many years after the Bible was written. The committee performed two additional tests in the spirit of the Gans experiments. Both tests failed to confirm the existence of the putative code.

After a long and interesting analysis of the experiment and the dynamics of the controversy, stating for example that "almost everybody included [in the controversy] made up their mind early in the game" Aumann concluded:

"A priori, the thesis of the Codes research seems wildly improbable... Research conducted under my own supervision failed to confirm the existence of the codes - though it also did not establish their non-existence. So I must return to my a priori estimate, that the Codes phenomenon is improbable".[9]

Personal life

Aumann married Esther Schlesinger in April 1955 in Brooklyn. They had met in 1953 when Esther, who was from Israel, was visiting the United States. The couple had five children; the oldest, Shlomo, was killed in action in 1982, while serving in the Israeli Army in the 1982 Lebanon War. Esther died of ovarian cancer in October 1998. In late November 2005, Aumann married Esther's widowed sister, Batya Cohn.[10]

Publications

    * Values of Non-Atomic Games, Princeton University Press,Princeton, 1974 (with L.S. Shapley).
    * Game Theory (in Hebrew), Everyman's University, Tel Aviv, 1981 (with Y. Tauman and S. Zamir), Vols. 1 & 2.
    * Lectures on Game Theory, Underground Classics in Economics, Westview Press, Boulder, 1989.
    * Handbook of Game Theory with economic applications, Vol 1-3, Elsevier, Amsterdam (coedited with S. Hart).
    * Repeated Games with Incomplete Information, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1995 (with M. Maschler).
    * Collected Papers, Vol 1-2, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2000.
    * Asphericity of alternating knots. Ann. of Math. (2) 64 1956 374—392.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Some info on the Hasidic Satmar Jews mentioned by "Game Theorist" Zionist- Robert John Aumann...


KIRYAS JOEL, N.Y. (CBS/WCBS) Is it a crime to sport bare arms and legs?

Not really, but one Hasidic Jewish community wants its visitors to cover up and has created a "Welcome" sign that discourages the scantily clad.

Kiryas Joel, which is 50 miles north of New York City, is home to a community of Satmar Hasidic Jews who follow a strict policy of modesty.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-504083_162- ... sidic+jews

Satmar opposition to Zionism


The Satmar's vehement position against Zionism was refined and officially formulated by Joel Teitelbaum, though it did not originate with him.[citation needed]

Before World War II most Hasidic rabbis, (including Rabbi Joel's father, Rabbi Chananyah Yom Tov Lipa), as well as many prominent non-Hasidic Orthodox leaders, believed that God had promised to return the Jewish people to the Land of Israel by means of the actions of the Jewish Messiah. Rabbi Yom Tov Lipa expressed the opinion that God had promised to return the land to the Jews via the Messiah alone and that any Jewish efforts to facilitate this redemption would be punished.[8] Instead of accepting benefits from the State of Israel, Rabbi Joel encouraged his followers to form self-sufficient communities in "the Holy Land." He recorded his views on Zionism in his polemical work Vayoel Moshe, published in 1958 and in a second book "Al Hageulah V'al Hatamurah" published in 1967 in the wake of the Six-Day War. Shortly before his death he set up the Keren Hatzalah fund to help those Jews who refrain from taking money from the Israeli Government.[citation needed]

Although it was certainly not the only reason for his opinion, one of the core citations from classical Judaic sources cited by Rav Yoel for his opposition to modern Zionism was that of the Three Oaths mentioned in the Talmud (Kesuboth 111A) which discusses a passage from the Song of Songs in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) in which God made the Israelites promise "to wait for Him before arousing His love":

    "King Solomon in Song of Songs thrice adjured the 'daughters of Jerusalem' not to arouse or bestir the love until it is ready.' The Talmud explains that we are bound by three strong oaths not to ascend to the Holy Land as a group using force, not to rebel against the governments of countries in which we live, and not by our sins, to prolong the coming of moshiach"[9]

A variant interpretation of the three oaths has the third oath being that God would not allow the non-Jewish world to "excessively" persecute the Jews. Rabbi Teitelbaum expressly held that the oaths were not dependent upon one another.[10]

In VaYoel Moshe Teitelbaum explicitly declared that, from the time of the very inception of the Zionist movement in the 1890s, the Zionists violated the three oaths, and thereby caused the Holocaust, as well as all wars, terrorism, and violence in modern Israel, and most anti-Semitism around the world since that time, as a result:

    "...it has been these Zionist groups that have attracted the Jewish people and have violated the Oath against establishing a Jewish entity before the arrival of the Messiah. It is because of the Zionists that six million Jews were killed."[11]

In keeping with the three oaths, Satmar Hasidim were strongly opposed to the creation of modern Israel through violence and antagonism against gentile nations such as the Ottomans and Britain. In the years following the Holocaust, Rabbi Teitelbaum undertook to maintain and strengthen this position, as did many other Torah Jews and communities. Rabbi Teitelbaum declared that the State of Israel was a violation of Jewish teachings. This was both because of the Zionists' violation of the traditional belief that Jews must wait for the Messiah to re-create Israel, and also because its founders included many personalities who were both hostile to Orthodox Judaism, or simply indifferent to it. Rabbi Teitelbaum believed the creation of the State of Israel, against the oaths described in Ketubot, constituted a form of impatience. In keeping with the Talmud's warnings that impatience for God's love and redemption can lead to grave danger, the Satmar Hasidim have often interpreted the constant wars and terrorism in Israel as fulfilment of that prophecy.[citation needed]

Rabbi Teitelbaum saw his opposition to Zionism as a way of protecting Jewish lives and preventing bloodshed. Most Haredi rabbis may agree with this idea;[citation needed] however, the general view of Agudath Israel is that, despite this, for all practical purposes, efforts can be made to prevent Israel from becoming even more anti-religious through participating in the Israeli government, seen by the Agudah as a form of "damage-control." Rabbi Teitelbaum however, felt that any participation in the Israeli government, even voting in elections, was a grave sin, because it contributed to the spiritual and physical destruction of innocent people. He felt that by voting one had a hand in these sins. Thus, he was officially opposed to the views of Agudath Israel, and the Satmar movement continues to refuse membership in the Agudath Israel organization or party. The Satmar view is that only the Jewish Messiah can bring about a new Jewish government in the Holy Land, and even if a government declaring itself religious would be formed before the Messiah, it would be illegitimate due to its improper arrogation of power, and it would still pose a danger to Jewish life.

While the Satmar Hasidim are opposed to the existence of a state of Israel, many of them live in and visit Israel (as Rabbi Teitelbaum did, many times).[citation needed] They see opposition to Zionism as an expression of love of the Holy Land, protecting it from the defilement of bloodshed and war (and not only from secularism, as many assume).[citation needed]

Satmar and Neturei Karta

The Satmar Hasidim's opposition to Zionism has at times led to comparisons and confusion with the small and controversial Haredi activist group Neturei Karta. While there are ideological similarities between the two groups, they have significantly different historical backgrounds. Satmar's views, as formulated and espoused by Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, were essentially continuations of earlier dynastic teachings about Judaism and the modern world, and are presently maintained by later generations of the Teitelbaum family; keeping the movement's ideology in line with the dynastic hierarchy. By contrast, Neturei Karta, formally created in 1935, was the result of several small and partially ad-hoc coalitions between various groups of marginalized anti-Zionist, mostly non-Hasidic, Haredi Jews living in what was then the Palestine region of the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.[12]