May 15, 2010
The Bible and the Ten Commandments are being banned because game playing is taking the place of truth and morality. Internationalists in universities, government, industry, education, and the United Nations play games with us in their attempt to substitute collectivist world regional government for Constitutional government. It is as if we were participants in an international game of high stakes poker. This is literally true. If you have seen the movie, "A Beautiful Mind" you will get some concept of the importance social scientists place on game theory.
The movie tells the story of John Nash, the schizophrenic mathematician who shared the 1994 Nobel Prize in economics for the contribution he made to the Theory of Games in his Princeton doctorate dissertation in 1950.
I first became aware of the existence and importance of game theory when I bought a stack of old FORTUNE magazines from our public library. In the June 1949 issue was an article by John McDonald that explained some of its basic principles. The article was based on a 1944 600-page book, The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior by John von Neumann, Hungarian-born mathematician, atomic scientist, Rockefeller Fellow, and computer developer, along with Oskar Morgenstern, Professor of Economics at Princeton University.
Without being a mathematical genius one can learn enough from the FORTUNE article and the movie to begin to understand what is going on. Sociologists, economists and political 'scientists' on both the left and the right have rejected the idea that there is a universal moral code or set of moral principles on which to base policies and behavior.
Instead, they have a religious devotion to the theory of evolution, encompassing social evolution. Game theory takes the place of Christian moral restraints. We are all treated as game players who make our decisions on the basis of economics, or gain for ourselves and/or our team. All ethics are situation ethics based on setting goals and attempting by hook or crook to achieve them. Good is success and evil is failure.
The ultimate goal is total world unity that theorists believe must be the ultimate outcome of evolution. Harvard University calls this system of goal-centered management, '"management by objectives."
are game theory and management by objectives used to gain power? The FORTUNE
article explained some of the facts about the theory. It is based on conflict
and it originated in the game of poker. Von Neumann stripped the game
to its bare structure, beginning with two players or two groups. Each
has imperfect information concerning the adversary. Each attempts from
time to time to confuse the adversary by bluffing or misrepresenting his
position of strength or weakness.
The conflict is resolved by a bet or a call after which the two hands are compared.
The basic good strategy must be always to bet high on a high hand and mostly low on a low hand, but with occasional, irregularly distributed bluffs. Enterprises operated according to game theory make lying (bluffing) permissible if it is useful toward reaching the goal. There are two possible motives for bluffing. The first is the desire to give a false impression of strength in real weakness. The second is the desire to give a false impression of weakness in real strength.
Of course, gaining world economic, social, educational, and political control is more complicated than a simple game. However, control is sought using principles similar to that of a three-person game. The power game involves (1) chance, (2) strategy, and (3) the possibility of forming coalitions.
Extra players add complications to solutions. Even in a 10-person game the players can be split into two opposing coalitions in 511 ways. However, game theorists say it is by no means necessary that so many combinations come into existence. The trade-union movement is given an example of how large numbers of economic individuals can group themselves back into small numbers of strategy-minded units. Nevertheless, the authors said, the problem of large numbers is the greatest challenge the game theorists have to meet.
And that is where John Nash's 'beautiful mind' and his game theory come in. An article in the January 9, 2002 PALM BEACH POST by Nicholas Thompson of the BOSTON GLOBE explained Nash's contribution. Supposedly Nash's theory can describe all competition involving an infinite number of players. He created a concept now called Nash equilibrium: "The game is over when the participants agree on a set of strategies such that no player wants to change to a different one. A Nash equilibrium doesn't mean that everyone is happy. It just means that no one wants to switch his position given the decisions of others."
With Nash's game theory, economic, political, and social theorists have methods by which facilitators can manipulate large groups to reach consensus.
BUT HOLD ON!
'Consensus' is another term used by game theorists that needs explanation. Two ladies, Ruth Feld and Jil Wilson, found this out in 1980 when they attended the Governor's Conference on Children and Families in Wisconsin. After the conference they wrote,
"One facilitator reminded a group, who kept on wanting to vote on issues, that a consensus did not mean the view of the majority, but is a 'consensus view.'"
The statement puzzled them, and when told about it I went scurrying for a dictionary that could help me understand what was meant by a consensus view. . From my search I came up with two significant synonyms for consensus:
Regarding (1) How can the Governor's Conference claim consensus when there is not agreement? The definition does not fit the circumstance.
Let's try (2),"accordance": "the state of being in accord; agreement with a person; conformity to a thing."
"Conformity to a thing" is the definition that makes sense. To game players consensus does not necessarily mean agreement. The beliefs of individual participants at the Governor's Conference on Children and Families were unimportant to the organizers and facilitators. They did not want a vote. They were unaffected by personal beliefs. The important thing was that participants were conforming to the game-playing system of facilitated conferences as the means to direct government policy. Participants did not necessarily have to be happy with the results. To participate or conform to the system was sufficient.
Game-playing meetings and conferences always have a person who is called a "facilitator." The duty of the facilitator is to stimulate discussion about the economic, political, or social issue among the diverse group of people assembled until it can be said they have arrived at a "consensus." Political, sociological, and economic, game playing can involve lying (bluffing), chance, coalition building, side-payment, cooperation, blocking, etc..
In game playing, economic, sociological, political, and educational decisions are generally made by a select group of players. However, no one person among the decision-making group can change the decision because it has been reached by 'consensus.'
The goal of game playing is always power and success. Despite all the so-called 'science' and experimentation involved in setting up game-playing systems, they can go bad for an enterprise (e.g. Enron). What happened? Were the bets too high? Were there too many bluffs? Was the goal too grandiose? Were wrong strategies chosen to reach the goal? Did competition or new players entering the game cause unanticipated problems? Did cooperating groups renege on their commitments? Or, perhaps, was the fall of Enron a victory for the system?
Why weren't Enron game players blocked before such a monumental disaster occurred? To understand this we have to remember we are talking about game playing--not morality. With game players in business, government or education the one who calls the bluffs or questions strategy of his own side (asks to see the cards) is known as a whistle blower. Whistle blowers destroy consensus. The facilitated game is intentionally set up so no one will feel comfortable making the call, exposing the hand, or destroying consensus.
How can you know whether someone is playing games with you rather than giving you personal respect? First, game playing events always have facilitators to guide the discussion toward the desired result. Second, there is always a pre-determined social problem to be discussed. Third, no one is allowed to criticize or attack the opinion of another participant. Fourth, there is an attempt to declare that a 'consensus' has been reached, even if it is an agreement to disagree.
Game playing has become accepted behavior in a great number of circumstances. Anyone who has attended meetings of foundation-funded or government-funded citizen groups organized around public issues; anyone who has discussed social problems in a classroom; any teacher who has been paid to attend in-service seminars; any member of an organization which is associated with an international blanket organization, such as the International Chamber of Commerce or Rotary International; any politician who has felt compelled by his party to vote against his better judgment has, whether aware of it or not, participated in game playing and consensus building for the New World Order.
Game playing to reach 'consensus' by groups of citizens in an effort to determine public policy has become so prevalent that a new career has been added to the social science milieu. Facilitators by the thousands are being trained to bring about what they call '"social change."
An International Association of Facilitators was set up in 1994. Its purpose is to "help promote the profession of facilitation as a critical set of skills in the global society of the 21st century." For those wishing to investigate further the home page of the International Association of Facilitators.
Unless people by the millions wise up to game playing and its techniques for controlling group opinion, in the future there will be but one opinion tolerated -- that which supports management by objectives for a global collectivist society.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
The global society has no morality and no permanent rules, such as the US Constitution or the Ten Commandments. There is only one principle – success. To the game players success for the World Management System is good. Failure is evil. They have thrown away truth and their Bibles and they expect you to do the same.
NOTE: Previous articles on game playing"
� 2010 Erica Carle - All Rights Reserved
Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Erica Carle is an independent researcher and writer. She has a B.S. degree from the University of Wisconsin. She has been involved in radio and television writing and production, and has also taught math and composition at the private school her children attended in Brookfield, Wisconsin. For ten years she wrote a weekly column, "Truth In Education" for WISCONSIN REPORT, and served as Education Editor for that publication.
E-mail: [email protected]