Game Playing Is
Replacing Biblical Morality
Erica Carle -
May 15, 2010
Emphasis added in bold and italicized letters
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
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."
How 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
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
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
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
"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 [not agree with
its goals and values] 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
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
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
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.
by Erica Carle:
Hates Christianity |
Sociological stupidity in schools
Government religion in the United
Moral and Intellectual Poison for
Student's Guide to the New World Order
The Chamber of Commerce - Part 1: Its Power and Goals
© 2008 Erica Carle - All Rights Reserved
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.
Her books are GIVE US THE YOUNG--$5 Plus $2.00 P&H WHY THINGS ARE THE WAY
THEY ARE--$16 PLUS $4.00 P&H BOTH BOOKS -- $25 Total. A loose leaf
collection of quotes titled, SIX GENERATIONS TO SERFDOM is also
available--$15 Plus $2.00 P&H. Mailing address: Erica Carle; PO Box 261; Elm
Grove, WI 53122.