The Global Game Of Chess

sandmountainslim · The Global Game Of Chess

Another fine piece from my friend and the Information Minister of the Jefferson Republican Party, Mr. D. Ray Perdue.
WP

http://www.raidersnewsnetwork.com/full.php?news=5988
The Global Game of Chess
Added: Jun 19th, 2007 7:35 AM

By Ray Perdue

RaidersNewsNetwork.com
June 19, 2007

I do not consider myself a master of the game of chess. I have always enjoyed the game, and especially like watching others who are good players make their moves. I have known some very good players. Some friends from high school and college were excellent, and much of what I learned about the game, I learned by observing them.

The ongoing war against liberty and freedom throughout the world by the global elite is nothing more than an elaborate chess game. By understanding and using the lens of the game of chess we can better understand what we are up against and take a peek at what is taking place behind the curtain.

The Game

Over the years the global elite has learned that their goals can only be accomplished through a slow, patient, methodical game. To move too quickly would give opportunity for mistakes to be made, and could, therefore, lead to serious setbacks and even defeat. By taking their time, the necessary moves can be made slowly enough, the changes take place gradually, that the game will be won before the opposition ever realizes what has even happened.

A good way to accomplish this is to destroy nations from the inside. Take control of political parties, and make them appear to be opposing sides, when they are really teammates. Those political parties can then pass laws that erode at a nation’s liberty and sovereignty. This goes a long way in explaining what is taking place in the United States of America.

Students of history know that these are some of the very goals of communism and socialism. Karl Marx put forward many of these policies in his Communist Manifesto.

Most of the elite may know who other members of the elite are, but not what parts they play. Most of the players that we see and hear on a day-to-day basis are pawns—such as the national leaders. Sometimes the pawns think more highly of themselves than what they should. Occasionally they may think they are knights, rooks or even kings. But, in reality, they are nothing more than pawns.

The knights are probably unaware of who the other knights are. Neither do they know who the rooks, bishops, queen or king are. The knights and the other players only know and do what they are told, and their parts to play. Odds are the queen does not even have the slightest idea as to who the king is.

The Parts They Play

A good example of how this entire scheme works is the supposed fall of Saddam Hussein.

During the 1980s Saddam Hussein was considered to be a major ally of the United States in the Middle East. America supplied him with a myriad of weaponry, as well as an ample supply of dollars throughout his long war with Iran. In the early 1990s his role began to change, and in a relatively short time he went from being an ally of the United States to the main threat of American policy in the Middle East. Finally, his job was complete and finished at the end of a hangman’s noose.

Anyone familiar with how chess is played knows that from time to time a pawn must sacrifice itself in order for the other pieces to move. Saddam Hussein, being a pawn, did just that. A knight had to move, and if that meant the pawn was sacrificed, then so be it.

Here in the United States our political parties are nothing more than pawns as well. The current illegal immigration issue and the illegal immigrants themselves are nothing more than another pawn. They are being moved in order to accomplish a specific purpose, so that another piece can make its predetermined move. Those illegal immigrants are expendable in the eyes of the elite, and many will be sacrificed so that the proper moves can be made.

It will be nearly impossible for us to ever discover who the other "pieces" are on the elite’s side. They rarely, if ever, show themselves. We only see and observe the actions of the pawns as they continually distract us from the real movements that are taking place.

It is possible that some "pieces" are made up of more than one person acting together as a unit. Organizations and even nations could be these other pieces. Without "inside information" that is hard to find out.

The Opposing Side

While discussing this with a friend, I was asked, "But who is the opposing side? Whom are the global elites playing against?" The answer is the rest of us.

The opposition is the citizens of the nations that the elites wish to dominate and control. Often we are disorganized, and since we have no idea what we are up against, or whose side we are on, we fight among ourselves. However, we are the only thing that stands between the elites and the accomplishment of their goals. Those who believe the Bible and seek to live by it stand in their way. Those who love liberty and freedom, and a small, limited government stand in their way. We are the other team, whether we realize it or not.

Much too often we tend to focus upon the wrong group of people as being the true enemy. Many see President Bush as being the enemy. While he is a member of the global elite, he is not the true threat, for he is simply a pawn. He, like many others, only does what he is told and makes the moves he is directed to make.

The true threats are the king, the queen, the bishops and the rooks. They are busy making their moves and we are too worried about the actions of a few pawns to pay attention to what is really taking place.

Holebender

Belief in the Bible is key here; it demonstrates an inability to think rationally and critically.

Jimbo

Looks like a long winded, dimwitted excuse for Bush's actions.

Neil

In chess the rules are simple (the way they come together is complex but in themselves are simple) & never changing. Someone once said that the ruling class always play by the rules but when they are losing change the rules. However true that may be of national politics it is far moreso of international politics. Anybody remember when we had to be enemies of the Russsians because thy didn't have democtratic elections or when we funded genocidal war against Biafra because we believed in the sanctity of frontiers, or fought 3 wars against Yugoslavia to hold that in 3 cases we believed in the undying principle of independence & in 3 we chose genocide instead.

gordon899

sandmountainslim

RFM

Or Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi,Soren Kirekegaard, Auldous Huxley, Rene Descartes, Baruch Espinosa?

Holebender

Essentially, yes. Most of those people lived in an age when it would have been unthinkable to profess atheism (the penalties were rather severe in many cases) so, (a) they would have kept such thoughts to themselves and we will never know in most cases or (b) they may not have given it much thought themselves as it was just the natural thing to do, especially when most people could not read the bible for themselves.

Bruce, for example, killed a man in a church. Does that sound like the act of a devout believer?

Going back to my original statement, belief in the bible is, in fact, absurd. It is full of mutually contradictory statements so they cannot all be true. As that is the case, it is impossible to believe in the literal truth of the bible and it is equally impossible to know which parts, if any, are true. It is safer and more rational to disbelieve all of it.

Neil

If you go back far enough before science the explanation that lightning came from Zeus or the Devil was a simpler & more crdibly explanation than the build up of subatomic charged particles. It was not unreasonable for people that long ago to accept the existence of God(s) as the most credible explanation.

Since then science has explained most of it & the intelligent design people have had to retreat from saying God created the universe in 7 days to having directed the evolution of the octopus's eye over millions of years. I believe science will find how even that was not God's action - you could call that Faith in science but it is a faith based on centuries ofv experience.

However if Huxley is to be considered irrational where will we find any human who is perfectly rational in all aspects of his life (except me).

RFM

Actually Holebender you are saying two different things: First that people who are religious cannot think rationally. If you read some of the people I listed for you, you would be hard put to maintain that argument. Rene Decartes who for instance came up with analytic geometry and cartesian coordinates.
Second, you equate "belief" in the Bible as irrational. Since the 19th century there has been considerable biblical scholarship, but little or none of it gets mainstream media attention. Suffice it to say here that one can not profess Judeo-Christian belief without serious study of the Bible. Study does not equate to "belief" any more than study of a history book equates to "belief". Nobody in this day and age takes it as a sort of "users manual" or guidebook for direction in living although I am sure there are a number of illiterates and superstitious people who do. The would be eqaully at home with ouija boards and goat entrails, but that is an indictment of their intellectual abilities, not an indictment of the Bible.

I don't know where you come up with the idea that any serious thinker would have been afraid to doubt the existence of God. Consider St. Thomas famous quote about needing help with his unbelief. Venerable Bede (7th Century)began the first English translation of the bible, followed by John Wycliff (1320's). It is certainly true that copies would have been expensive and difficult to obtain, but they were there.

Holebender

And if you go back to my original post you will see that it specifically says belief in the bible betrays an inability to think rationally. It has been other people who have jumped in and interpreted that as meaning belief in a deity is irrational. (It is, but that was not my point.)

As the bible was not written in the vernacular or widely available before printing presses, no ordinary person had access to its contents save through the interpretations of a trained priest. And a trained priest had a vested interest in keeping things that way!

If you want a rational discussion of religious belief in general, I suggest you read Bertrand Russell's essay "Is there a God?". He phrases it a lot better than I could, but I will be happy to discuss the logic (or lack thereof) of religion with anyone.

Russell's essay can be found at http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html

RFM

To Holebender;
Before you lay blame on others, go back and read your post of June 20, 2007.

Christianity has been around and still going strong for well over 2000 years now. You may regard Russell as the last word but even he would concede that humans were, and still are, the ones who reach for something to believe in. That is contained in the introduction to his book if memory serves me correctly. It was not, and still is not a matter of wicked priests forcing something down people's throats. Although that has been the Protestant orthodoxy for several years, the simple fact is that people quite willingly flocked to Christianity when there was no compelling reason to do so; indeed there were a number of very good reasons not to. After it gained quite widely in popularity and stature, somewhat like Communism, it not only became fashionable to be a Christian, but for purposes of gainful and regular employment, a necessity. Yet with few exceptions, history is repleat with instances of non-believers, often in the context of persecutions, but that would also suggest that there were also present dissenters who felt or saw no gain in persecution.

If you want an interesting and rational discussion about religion, read Hans Kung "Does God Exist?". Kung was a contemporary of the present Pope Benedict when they served together in the College for the Propagation of the Faith or what used to be known as the Office of the Holy Inquisition.

Holebender

I am not seeking to blame others, and I don't really know what you mean by that. My post of June 20th said

Neil

RFM

To Holebender,

I don't know where you are going with your argument that belief in a diety, or in the Bible for that matter, is irrational. Decartes laid that to rest about 400 years ago. You might want to take a peek at his writing too while you are at it.

RFM

To Niel,
That is the fifty dollar question: Why do humans need to believe in anything at all? They unquestionably do so; in fact the famous quote of the atheist is that he exists simply because others believe in God. There is a certain amount of truth in that when you reflect that very few people know how colored television works and they do not care. Why then get all concerned about other things you do not understand or know how they work such as God?
I think your argument is too cynical; people understand quite readily when some idea is a good thing or not. Religion continues to sell itself on the notion that it does good things for people, whether you agree with that or not. If results are an indication of the truth of that proposition, the believers certainly think so.

Neil

The key question indeed

Holebender

Neil

Holebender

Anyone who believes anything, especially from the State, without some sort of independent corroboration is not acting rationally.

If I were to tell you the moon was made from green cheese I doubt if you'd believe me. Why should you believe it just because some authority figure says so?

However, that's a diversion. It is easy to show that parts of the bible contradict other parts of the bible. Therefore some, at least, of those parts are false. Two mutually contradictory statements cannot both be true, to believe so is irrational.

RFM

To Holebender,
1. What is irrational is not the content of a book but the notion that a reader should "believe" in the book or its content. I do not understand what you mean exactly when you say "believe" in a book and I do not think you do either. Further the Bible is not the only book ever published with fanciful stories or contradictions; that does not and should not prevent anyone from evaluating it on its own merits.

2. People, including you no doubt, have always accepted as true propositions and assertions without a single shred of proof or evidence. Very few people for instance have ever looked through a microscope or if they did ever understood what exactly they were looking at, yet people who regard themselves as intelligent readily accept the microbe theory and the assertion that microbes cause illness. Very few people have ever proved to themselves exactly why radio and television signals propagate through the world, nor would they understand it if it was explained to them. People have lived in terror for years of thermonuclear war, but have never proved to themselves, or done anything more than take someone else's word for the truth of the matter, that atoms exist and nuclear fission is a fact. You for instance cite the phenomenon of gravity as something you have possibly proven to yourself. If that is so tell us please why when a boy throws a ball into the air it comes right back down to him rather than someplace else if given the earth's rotation gravity is the mere attraction of objects on the surface. Tell us why an electron has mass and is therefore influenced by gravity but a photon has none. Are these matters that you have accepted without proof, but the notion of a deity sticks in your throat?

Scott2006

A Deity or Deities if they were to exist would be several billion years old - would have no interest or even concept of life as we can describe it.

All religions as laid down are fanciful - a sop for the superstitious.

Perhaps God is a concept that mankind can rise to comprehend or supersede through ever greater understanding of the new mathematics of higher dimensions and natural philosophy whether biological, chemical or a harnessing of long life technologies and controlled nuclear fusion.

The Bible itself is over-studied and is a fundamentalist collection of life studies that are not entirely relevant. The final book of the Bible is as informative as Nostradamus. Interpretation varies so widely that any tract or text can be given primacy by any sect to explain their actions.

sandmountainslim

The comments of Hole Bender and others PROVE that Atheism itself IS a religion!
Atheism is just as dogmatic as any of the established religions and it's followers are just as closed minded to other viewpoints. Of course the followers cannot see this and see themselves as enlightened and full of reason but a religion it is!
WP

Holebender

sandmountainslim

Reverend Holebender continues with his Great Crusade, all the time not realizing that he follows a type of religion Smile

WP

Scott2006

I do not believe in religion - but I am open to contemplating scenarios which are open-ended possibilities.

The great and, as some might see, scary advances in medicine do not rule out - in a timescale of the next hundred years or so a POSSIBILITY of anybody achieving for them a re-injection of life - to a corpse dead for 3 days - with successful regeneration of the structure of the bodily organs and fluids. Cell death may be tricked and re-started. Some POSSIBILITIES not BELIEFS.

If reality overtakes your religion - what do you do? Does that re-inforce your belief system or cause you to question your assumptions?

Pre-judgement, Pre-determinism, blind dogmatic acceptance are not rational stances to justify without a degree of evidence.

RFM

To Holebender;
I notice your writing style has undergone a substantial change for some reason; no matter the response is quite good.

The Bible, like any other book, has its fans and interested readers. There are several reasons to believe that much of it is grounded in historical fact, in much the same way that Homer's poems, the Scandanavian sagas and other works are also. It is indeed unfortunate that illiterates have come to deem it a sort of "magic" book, but that is their choice and it need not be mine or yours. As I said, it deserves to be read and evaluated on its own merits just like any other book.

Religion is one of the great issues of history, particularly the Christian religion. It has been eagerly adopted by many nations and cultures, largely for the reason that it holds out the promise of a moral, decent and fulfilling life to its adherents. All the sneering about the need for proof, evidence, and something substantial to see and handle before it can be accepted is impeached by the long historical time line of its acceptance and growth. I hope you will pardon my saying so, but the new self-styled cynics are in the historical and intellectual minority. Go and read what thinkers have had to say about religion before you clamor for proof and evidence; they understood those problems 500 to 2500 years before you were born. Begin there if you think there is some safety in adopting the views of specialists, as though that were some sort of an excuse for your own proclaimed need for proof.

Holebender

Aventinian

Aventinian

RFM

To Holebender,

Sorry to hear you are under the weather, I wish you speedy recovery.

As Soren Kierkegaard put it,"I believe because it is irrational". He was making the point you keep avoiding, that belief is by definition not based entirely on reason, but it certainly has enough evidence to support its existence. For instance, what is now known as "gut feeling" is regarded as instinct, or belief if you will, with little or no evidence to support it. It is not only necessary for our survival, it serves as a useful tool when there is little or no opportunity to inquire or investigate. That does not make it irrational in the sense you imply as being an abberation. The rationalist feels uncomfortable with undefined and uncontrolled feelings and rejects it as superstition.
In other words if it can not be conceptualized, it should be condemned.

Of course no single source of information can be taken as fact without corroboration. Historically, from the 19th century on there has been much time and effort invested in investigating the Bible from a secular perspective, much of which has been enlightening for those who are interested in the subject. From the viewpoint of belief, the message of the Bible has been, and remains, the story of an evolution in human morality, ethics, family relationships, and citizenship, which many people believe to be worthy of emulation. "To believe" in the Bible is essentially an admonition to emulate, to adopt, to behave in like manner. When you consider that very few people have the intellectual resources or even the inclination to work out a personal system of ethics and beliefs, the message of the Bible becomes apparent to all except the obstinate and the illiterate. To insist on being rational in this day and age is simply to insist on a form of subjective self interest, that is I believe that which suits my immediate needs.

Neil

RFM

To Adventian,

You do great disservice to Descartes; he was actually picking up on a topic originated by Plato. To simplify extremely, Plato concluded that if a person believes God exists, then by definition, God exists. Decartes was trying to extrapolate when he named as a first principle, "I think, therefore I am" (Cogito ergo sum in Latin, the language of learning in 18th century europe).
He also concluded it was not possible to extrapolate backwards in the hypothetical question of why does one think God exists at all?

This is all quite shocking to me; when I was last in Scotland I met as a tour guide in Edinburgh a young man who told me that first year students in the University are required to study Philosophy for the reason that it taught them to think. If they were unable to do that it was best to find that out at the outset.

RFM

To Scott 2006;

In the Eastern Orthodox Church the Apostle's Creed is recited "...that Jesus was crucified,
suffered and was buried...".

Holebender

While I accept that none of you will be persuaded by this thread I will point out that none of you has given any rational basis for believing what you believe. You believe in the absence of evidence, indeed you often believe in spite of the evidence.

An example; there are people who believe that the entire universe is about 6000 years old because someone once sat down and calculated its age based on stories in the bible. There is only one source for this belief, and ample evidence to contradict this belief yet young earth creationists put all their faith in the one source and ignore the many. The only applicable word for that sort of behaviour is irrational.

RFM

Actually Holebender, your notions are so simplistic as to be breathtaking.

You assume that there is only one explanation and one set of facts that explains everything. To use your example of the age of the earth; what set of facts do you point to as the only reliable evidence that can be believed? Or you are possibly not aware of the controversies that have raged for years in geology and paleontology? Or where is man descended from in the genus Homo? Or does life as we know and understand it exist on other planets?

You think it clever to ridicule people who see the world in Biblical terms, but it was you who admitted that you accept the opinions of "specialists" whatever they might be, in matters which you have never investigated for proof. Yet you deny that by that definition, a preist, a rabbi and a minister would all be 'specialists".

Jimbo

I don't see how a priest, rabbi or minister could be classed as a specialist other than in being well read in their individual religious doctrines. These men who you give as examples are not exactly scientists but people who have probably been brainwashed from an early age into the doctrines of their particular church/es and are now probably incapable of seeing beyond their own personal beliefs.

I'm with Holebender on all of this. As far as I'm concerned religion is the anesthetic for the weak mind, something to look forward to to allay the fear of death.

RFM

Nobody claims they are men of science, but what leads you to the idea that science has the answers to everything? Scientists I observe are often utter incapable of abstract thought unless they can visualize it in their minds or it has something to do with science. Further science has no answers or explanations for many things, as any scientist will readily admit. Further who in this entire world is not driven by their own personal interests? Are you familiar with the race to decode the human genome, for instance?

The reason I list preists, rabbis and ministers as specialists was because Hoelbender was unable to deny that there were many things he did not have personal proof for and had taken other peoples word for their existence, such as matters of science. His response was that these were explained by "specialists" who reported and sought to explain these things. However if it is outside the realm of science, different rules apply. Why so?

Neil

Since there is no actual evidence of the existence of a God the nearest we could come would be to study His alleged creation.

Thus I would accept Stephen Hawking as the nearest thing we have to an expert & deny this title to priests, rabbis, ministers, Popes, witchdoctors, Aleister Crowley, Anton LeVey, L Ron Hubbard & others who make a living claiming to be able to get him to alter the universe in favour of those who give them money.

Scott2006

I think I have made my position clear as the murky conditions allow.

To RFM

As an understanding of groups with influence or even complete dominance in the law and politics of a state or states - you obviously have to comprehend the thinking processes of those who are "book-bound" in their local or world view.

If we take the many religions branching out from just considering what has led up to our various interpretations of christianity, take for example a movement from South Korea where mass weddings are the norm. Without drawing obvious comparisons or even getting beyond generalities of 3 differing but overlapping "books" - as you can remember Lincoln and McKinlay and two brothers.
As the Soviet Union was leading in the Space Race a new leader of a new country (relative to religious established doctrine timescales) made a rash proclamation which could have elevated him to a level of authority that challenged certain "book-ish" types.
This man and his younger brother were sent on their way to having names of airports and legal buildings and schools etc named in their honor (your spelling I believe-is-the-usual-practice) - a heresy is needed to be resolved.
Every cloud has a silver lining, usually, but as you remember the Vietnam conflict from a certain time in history had a result of having a leader step down from doubling up his leadership - wisely I would say. He was in the strange period in a country where he was in office but his replacement had already been voted for through a college system and popular vote of that country. The third "book" in a series of three very 'beliefable' books has a passage relating in a way in direct reference with the final month in the year I was thinking of - that gave a different view of and from the world.
The world changed even more within less than 6or 7 months when a tricky much recorded event that lasted for just a few days resulted in this newer leader of a very new country - having to visit the ocean on a naval vessel to be accepted, I repeat accepted, by three individuals of strong beliefs as the leader that made or accepted responsibility for over-turning some extremely strongly held beliefable indoctrinaire religious positions.

If I can state the obvious - the nativity of the 2nd "book" - if used as a template in the need for informing events of almost 40 or so years past - is leaving room for a profit/prophet position to be elucidated.
This takes me back to the third bookable position - 'a certain movement that asks A Question of their supreme being' - I will refer for speed of typing to A Question as AQ.
The human species has a 9 month period of time from a coupling or other arrangement to the delivery into the world of a new member of that species.
Putting this 9 month factor into historical observation - we can see febmar of one year is about the right length of time before 1 event. If a second event is in the last month of the first half or first month of the second half of the following year then 9 months before that is calculable. Allowing for the 9 months to contine after that second event - we see a limited time from 9 months before event 1 and 9 months after event 2 of avrilly short time of about 2 years where the revealer, if you will indulge me, of the passage in a classical language much repeated by devout people, see those who have undermined their religion as enemies unworthy of mention in the same breathe as that passage of text.

Within the 2 year period above, where both events overlap allows for a conception of an idea where event 1 is the start and takes in event 2 arriving at curious species revealed event 3 back on the ground.
This event 3 (depending on which interpretation of which calendar and shorter or longer natural delivery of the offspring etc) puts it in a certain year - which required an answer to A Question approximately 32 years later (see "book" 2 which sometimes gives 33 years in some versions as the life of that prophetic individual or leader of a good life that as you refer to in your previous post addressed to my given forum name)

Of course I wish I could have sufficiently explained this very rough interpretation of events earlier to the appropriate individual etc - but I did try.

Holebender