White King/Black King

White King Black King

A Game Of Chess

Author Yuri Medvedev
Language Flag of Lovia Small English
Publisher The House Publishers
Publication date 2010 (Lovia)
Editions One (1st)
Genre Polemic
Media type Print (paperback)
Pages 210
Rating(s) 4 stars½ Nova Times
5 stars The Lovian News
Preceded by A New Vision On An Old System (with A.C. Red)
Followed by Theory In Practice

White King/Black King: A Game Of Chess is a Lovian 2010 essay book by Yuri Medvedev, published February 22th, 2010. It was published by The House Publishers. It is a response on the republican and anti-elitist 2010 book The Insight into Lovia: The Despotic King by Brenda Young. White King/Black King is a criticism of the Cabal Theory and fascist, republican and communist groups in Lovia. The title refers to the political game of chess and the black/white visions of extremist groups. The book tries to address the problems put forward in Young's work, in a more neutral light.

Content Edit

Preface Edit

In the book's preface, the author refers to the fact he is starting a polemic. He also draws some lines between chess and politics and lets us think about political extremism. He shows the danger of defending extremist ideologies (on both sides of the political spectrum) as Brenda Young does in her work. The preface begins as follows:

What do you think is the perfect move to start a game of chess? You could choose not to make a move at all and stall the game, but eventually you will loose your playing partner. Once the first move is made, by either party, the game has begun. There is no way back, it needs to be played. Some political extremists have made their opening move and so we have to follow. Their goal is to strike our most important piece: the King.
I used the theme of chess because of two reasons. First of all I wanted to make sure this polemic is one of reason and logic instead of hysteric prophecies and personal assaults. Otherwise we wouldn't have a polemic, but an ordinary fight. Second, I would like to tackle the white/black vision that is proposed in the work of Brenda Young. Chess is indeed a game of white against black, but this devision is made only to avoid confusion. If it would be equally handy to have a multi-colored chessboard, we would all play on it. For these extremists too, white versus black and good versus evil is the most handy way to play their game. I on the other hand will try to persue the truth and thus play on the multi-colored chessboard.

Chapter 1: My Kingdom For A Donkey Edit

Medvedev tackles Young's accussations to the King:

The extremist groups in Lovia complain about the oppressive acts - supposedly - performed by King Dimitri I of Lovia. They say that in spite of his successful public image he rules as an oppressive dictator. Young, in her latest publication, contrasts her demonic image of the despot-king against the archetype of a true democrat, in her views personified by Dietrich Honecker.
Is our king really the demon that those various populist movements fear he is? Sure, the king is an active person who has made valuable contributions to Lovia's cultural and economic heritage, but shouldn't we celebrate such an involved king? Should we not be happy we have a monarch that dares to speak his mind? The extremists use the fact that we have a hard working king to make him look like someone who manipulates us all to his own good. The reality looks less like 1984 than put forward in the Cabal Theory.
The real power in Lovia doesn't reside in the king, but in the people. Every year fair elections are held and Congress is given more and more power over time. The king even supports the reform plan that is currently proposed in the First Chamber and which will lower his power and that of the Prime Minister (myself). All the power they loose will go straight to Congress since political organs are like communicating vessels: when one gets weaker the other becomes stronger. It would be too bad to see this trend of further democratizing turn out to be a way into populism and actual dictatorship.

Young, author of The Insight into Lovia: The Despotic King, praises IGP leader Dietrich Honecker. This attitude is harshly criticized by Medvedev:

Which brings me to the views of Dietrich Honecker, whom is greatly admired in Young's work. The almost divine goodness that the extremists contribute to this figure reminds me of other dictators who rose to power by charism. Loose from my personal perception on this I would like to point out that Honecker was the one who called the current lovian system 'undemocratic' and who wanted to put Congress aside by means of violence. My question to you, Lovians, is a simple one: will you sell your kingdom for (or to) a donkey?

Chapter 2: All The Kings Men Edit

In Chapter 2, Medvedev responds to Young's second section on the Lovian elite, the so-called Cabal. Young herself described it as: "The Lovian Cabal is an elite that rules Lovia: a elite full of bastards and bitches, who care nothing for the people. These bastards rule Lovia with a iron grip, a grip Leader Honecker has tried to destory." Medvedev challenges this Anti-Cabalist view by denying the existence of such a group:

The extremists say that they oppose against a Lovian Cabal, a supposed elite that rules Lovia with an iron fist. I will not deny that there is a group of people who are more prominent in Lovian politics, such as the king and myself. But I doubt this has anything to do with manipulation or repression. The position - and perhaps even capabilities - of these people make that they are more active on the political terrain. Young also fantasizes that politicians such as myself have the power to adapt or suspend the Constitution at will, to manipulate the outcome of Federal Elections outside our own votes and to control the entire political and judicial system. If it was only true... just kidding! Those claims are clearly made up out of the blue since there is no proof for any of them. It are you, the people of Lovia, who decide when my term as PM will be over.

He also challenges Young's accussations concerning himself, and tries to find a source of truth in them:

In don't want to deny those of you that haven't read a copy of Young's work her flattering description of myself:
"The Bastard man Yuri Medvedev, the Prime Minister of Lovia, a business person, the head of the company Veprom, and a Lovian judge and federal secetary. Yuri is King Dimitri's right-hand man and aide, his power unquinched. The king grants Yuri the power to execute his orders at will. Prime Minister Medvedev even has control of the Lovian economy!"
One accusation that I can partially agree upon is the fact that the Progressive Democrats, a supposed bastion of the Lovian elite, is less progressive than the name suggests. In the past I had a very different view on how my party should be. Only, when I tried to discuss those more progressive and leftist views, I found myself under attack for being too socialist. I always fought against the image of leftist being the same as socialist, but it didn't work. Perhaps I can work on this in the future.

Chapter 3: For King And Country Edit

In his third and conclusive chapter, Medvedev addresses the general attitude of Young and other rightist republicans and supporters of the Cabal Theory:

I would like to conclude with a chapter on the dangers of dogmatic views such as aggressive nationalism or religious fanaticism. In see that those views follow the same base logic as is used by the forces behind the current upheavals. They are all based on the juxtaposition of the goodness of oneself and the corrupted other. The complex reality is reduced to a simple battle of good versus evil, in which the mistakes of the self are neglected and the hatred for the other is being justified in the light of this struggle. The external treat that is being constructed in the minds of the misled must be destroyed. That is, according to this irrational logic, the only way to preserve what you love. This way, the offensive with an unexposed goal is made look like it is a defensive reflex.
The creativity and goodness of the individual is being raped by an assault of these irrational forces. Extremist movement from all sides of the political spectrum are making an appeal to our 'common sense', the 'ultimate good' and other abstractions of our own desires. It is like Alphaville sings in their song: 'it is so hard to die without a cause'. People find it difficult to accept that their life is - initially - without meaning. If we however would embrace the absurdity of existence and concentrate us on concrete results for a better world, then we would be able to throw away those phantasies that keep us hostage in eternal conflict.
It would be silly to die for your king, your country or an incomprehensible force that created the universe. Therefor I ask you all to NEVER loose your independence. As a leftist I promote the idea of a world in which we have accomplished the highest state of common good, but I also have seen what radical change can do to this beautiful idea. We should keep on working on a better, more just tomorrow but never loose our understanding along the way. How could a tomorrow without understanding be better anyway...

Reception Edit

The book received excellent reviews from Nova Times and The Lovian News. August Magnus Donia of the LCP was mildly critical.

See also Edit