Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

sandmountainslim · Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:29 am Post subject: 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.

_________________
William Potter
ScotWatch International
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scotwatch/
Jefferson Republican Party
http://jeffersonrepublicanparty.com
http://jeffersonrepublican.blogspot.com/

Holebender · Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:23 am Post subject:

Belief in the Bible is key here; it demonstrates an inability to think rationally and critically.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Jimbo · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 657

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

Neil · Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject:

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.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

gordon899 · Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:31 pm Post subject:

sandmountainslim · Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:32 pm Post subject:

RFM · Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:59 am Post subject:

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

Holebender · Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:38 am Post subject:

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.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Neil · Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:26 am Post subject:

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).
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

RFM · Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:32 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:08 pm Post subject:

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
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

RFM · Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:41 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:15 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject:

RFM · Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:36 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:21 pm Post subject:

The key question indeed

Holebender · Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:54 pm Post subject:

Neil · Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:13 pm Post subject:

Holebender · Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:30 pm Post subject:

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.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso