New World Order (NWO), sometimes called the Great Reset

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism



1. Private Property

Sid - Post # 308 - 23/9/5 - "[Democratic Marxism/Bob A] seem to operate under the assumption that small communities must equal Marxist abolition of private property."

DM - DM will abolish "Bourgeois Capitol". It allows for small, " personal property" of various types........the exact format of this will likely be determined on the ground, by the local residents. This position has already been clearly stated in other prior posts questioning the role of private property, if any, under Democratic Marxism.

2. Local Political Unit (LPU)

DM seeks the abolition of nation-states. In its place will exist an Earth that is a "collection of villages". The Commune and the Kibbutz are favoured models. As well, the business structure of the "Cooperative" is favoured. The general goal in all is small & communal. For example, it is the policy of the Democratic Marxist Party of Ontario (As yet unregistered) that the province will devolve all powers possible to the LPU's, except those necessary for the Province to change function to being the Administrative Secretary for the Ontario LPU's. It will continue to receive federal transfer payments, and then share them between the LPU's and itself, so the Province is totally functional in a new way.

3. Local Adaption

Sid - Post # 308 - 23/9/5 - "So, what is interesting is that a small community with its own rules can operate with or without the concept of private property."

DM - DM agrees with Sid. The overarching DM principles for society will not be rigid. They will be flexible. They will honour local decision-making. So, as with the evolution of the kibbutz, local governments will have a fair space in which to establish a customized DM LPU. Of course, if the society blows apart trying to establish majority position re LPU structure and law, an election will be held, and the majority, if of a mind, can throw the rascals out.........we would hope not in favour of some unbridled Capitalist Party (sigh).

I will revisit these when I form more proposed Statements for Democratic Marxism for our CT'er group to chomp on.

Bob A (As Participant; DM'er)

[Dilip Panjwani]

the slow-kill bioweapon injections have caused massive infertility among women worldwide.

Hi Sid, Is there any date supporting this? The following link shows that the fertility decline has not accelerated 2020 till now at least:

https://www.macrotrends.net/countrie...fertility-rate

(You may postulate that 'working' from home should have increased fertility, which did not happen...)

[Sid Belzberg]

BobA you might find the history of the kibbutz movement in Israel interesting.

The kibbutz movement started in the early 20th century as an experiment in collective living and agricultural production. In traditional, or "classic," kibbutzim, private property was primarily discouraged, and most assets were communally owned. Members worked for the collective and received services like housing, healthcare, and education from the kibbutz rather than a salary. In these more traditional settings, an individual with a large family inheritance would typically have been expected to contribute it to the communal enterprise.

However, many kibbutzim have undergone significant changes in recent decades. Many have moved away from strict collectivism to embrace various forms of privatization, often referred to as the "renewed" or "new" kibbutzim. In these communities, members may receive salaries, own private property, and even run private businesses. The specifics can vary widely from one kibbutz to another.

So, whether an individual in a kibbutz can own private property like a large family inheritance would depend on the rules of that particular kibbutz. In more traditional kibbutzim, there may be social or formal expectations for the inheritance to be shared or contributed in some way to the community. In more privatized kibbutzim, private ownership of such an inheritance is more likely to be accepted.

So, what is interesting is that a small community with its own rules can operate with or without the concept of private property. The idea of tiny villages like Kibbutz does not entail having to have a Marxist philosophy of abolition of private property.

You seem to operate under the assumption that small communities must equal Marxist abolition of private property. We have a working model in Israel where you could go either way. The reality is the Elites that control the WEF and their UN partners, including the WHO, and in turn are controlled by the CCP, have brainwashed you with the altruistic notion of fighting climate change, fighting sarscov2 virus and the slow-kill bioweapon injections that have caused massive infertility among women worldwide is all part of the CCP's agenda to wipe out Western civilization as we know it and make them the masters of a depopulated slave state.

[Bob Armstrong]

I congratulate our CT Group on Human Self-Government.

We have had "free-form" discussion and all have learned from another.

Whereas free-form discussion is beneficial, it produces little that is concrete.

Our group, using TCFP, has created three sets of good, layperson's, succinct, concrete Statements! They are now presented in a form here that can easily become a Hard Copy. It can now be shared digitally or manually by hard copy:

Human Self-Government Generally - 9 Statements
Libertarianism - 8 Statements
Democratic Marxism - 3 Statements

We are, in a small way, making available education materials on important human issues, for those interested. Whether anyone other than us sees our material is pretty much up to us.

Bob A (As Group Secretary/No wolf.....)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip why bother engaging with someone who behaves like a pompous officious bureaucrat? Life is too short.

Well, when I am convinced he is 'a wolf in sheep's clothing'...' a fascist under the cover of a couple of votes'...

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

Yes, family first.

But all Religions teach "Help the Stranger" (Sometimes stated as the "Golden Rule"). I know you agree with this.

To paraphrase retired Canadian Judge Rosalie Abella (Wikipedia: Appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004; became the first Jewish woman and refugee to sit on the Canadian Supreme Court bench): A society is measured by the way it treats its most vulnerable". I know you agree with this.

Altruism should, often, over-ride self interest - as a society of equals, all workers must share the economic pie (And those incapable of working; and those who unemployed seeking work). I believe you agree with this.

So your issue seems to be that the members of society should be free, in fair competition, to gain as much as they can of the society pie, so long as their is no harm directly to others or society.

Problem: Such unbridled greed (legal), seen by Libertarians as "moral", will cause a very disparate division of the pie, because clearly some individuals are greatly talented entrepreneurs (Jeff Besos, Bill Gates, George Soros, Elon Musk, Richard Branson, Jack Ma, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.). What will be left for the ordinary worker? And yet it is the worker (along with Capital) that CREATES the pie. Capital alone can only gain interest, dividends, etc..........it needs the labour of the worker for society to function economically. Is there not something wrong with this picture?

Solution: Progressive Taxation - give the workers a more fair piece of the pie, by taking some pieces from those who can't eat all they have anyways, to distributing it fairly to those with less, according to law.

Bob A (Democratic Marxist/As Participant)

So now you are labeling legal theft as 'forced altruism'. You seem to be endorsing what is happening (and being condoned) in USA: "You need something you have not earned enough for? Go steal it from a mall! The next time you need a good chess clock to improve your on-board skills, and don't have one and can't buy one, steal it at your next tournament!!"

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

Yes, family first.

But all Religions teach "Help the Stranger" (Sometimes stated as the "Golden Rule"). I know you agree with this.

To paraphrase retired Canadian Judge Rosalie Abella (Wikipedia: Appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004; became the first Jewish woman and refugee to sit on the Canadian Supreme Court bench): A society is measured by the way it treats its most vulnerable". I know you agree with this.

Altruism should, often, over-ride self interest - as a society of equals, all workers must share the economic pie (And those incapable of working; and those who unemployed seeking work). I believe you agree with this.

So your issue seems to be that the members of society should be free, in fair competition, to gain as much as they can of the society pie, so long as their is no harm directly to others or society.

Problem: Such unbridled greed (legal), seen by Libertarians as "moral", will cause a very disparate division of the pie, because clearly some individuals are greatly talented entrepreneurs (Jeff Besos, Bill Gates, George Soros, Elon Musk, Richard Branson, Jack Ma, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.). What will be left for the ordinary worker? And yet it is the worker (along with Capital) that CREATES the pie. Capital alone can only gain interest, dividends, etc..........it needs the labour of the worker for society to function economically. Is there not something wrong with this picture?

Solution: Progressive Taxation - give the workers a more fair piece of the pie, by taking some pieces from those who can't eat all they have anyways, to distributing it fairly to those with less, according to law.

Bob A (Democratic Marxist/As Participant)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements re Human Self-Governance (NWO/GR)
(Generally accepted by a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Forum). The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.They represent the partisan political spectrum and the issue spectrum.)

Statement # 8

Good education enlightens the mind. Today's rote data learning only challenges the memory. Without the former, society will have neither a wise electorate, nor a wise government.

[Note: This Statement has already been adopted by the Fb Group, Democratic Marxist Global Forum]

Supporting Reasons

The purpose of education is to promote the student's creativity and capacity for societal criticism. It is not just about "facts" (data learning). We want students to develop good and discerning "judgment". A wise citizenry will lead to a wise self-government.

Processing
After one week no CT'er has come forward to Challenge the proposed Statement # 8.

Conclusion

Statement # 8 is generally accepted. It joins the list of other Statements.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Human Self-Government

[Part II of 3; see Part I above]

Statement # 8 (Proposed)

Good education enlightens the mind. Today's rote data learning only challenges the memory. Without the former, society will have neither a wise electorate, nor a wise government.

[Note: This Statement has already been adopted by the Fb Group, Democratic Marxist Global Forum]

Supporting Reasons

The purpose of education is to promote the student's creativity and capacity for societal criticism. It is not just about "facts" (data learning). We want students to develop good and discerning "judgment". A wise citizenry will lead to a wise self-government.

Processing

There will be one week for a Challenge to proposed Statement # 8; deadline: Monday, Sept. 4 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

B. Processing Periods

1. If there are no challenges, then the Statement is “generally accepted” after one week.

2. The deadline for discussion of a Challenge will normally be one week after there is the first Defense of the Challenge.

Appendix A

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem. They represent the partisan political spectrum and the issue spectrum.



Statement # 1

Governments at all levels pass too many laws. Many are more restrictive than necessary, and some are just unnecessary. This unduly restrains the freedom of the individual, which is the paramount concern of society.

Statement in Opposition to Libertarian positions in Statements # 1 - # 6

Part 1:
There is no such thing as universal common-sense. Since a common-sense interpretation of the Natural Law ("do no harm to others, except in fair competition") is always subject to personal bias as to what exactly common-sense IS, there can be no consistent and irrefutable, indisputable interpretation of the Natural Law. Consequently, any attempt at one-size-fits-all Libertarianism will lead to alienation / protests / violence / overthrow of the system. Even the vaunted Judges and Police will be at each other's throats, because they have differing views of common-sense. This is the nature of humanity as evidenced throughout human history."

Part 2:
"There is no such thing as a universal definition of "fair competition". Therefore even where common-sense is not in dispute (if that could ever be the case, which Part 1 disputes), still disputes will inevitably arise over what constitutes exceptions under the Fair Competition clause. Lawyers will endlessly argue about possible exceptions, which current [B]legal systems try to encapsulate under the living, evolving system of laws and sub-laws, which Natural Law counter-intuitively sets out to abolish.


Bob A (Anti-NWO)

Bob, if the straight-forward concepts of common-sense and fair competition sound complicated & unworkable to you and to PP, please accept my sympathies. You are headed for the misery of Democratic Marxism, where you get drowned in a myriad nonsensical 'laws' devoid of all common-sense, and fair competition is replaced with 'unfair grabbing' from a very limited common-pie all are forced to share... Are you forgetting the dark side of human beings (which you repeatedly mention), when it comes to forceful sharing with strangers (outside of the their family which they have created, and hence feel responsible for)?

[Sid Belzberg]

Hi Dilip:

I consider your Post # 299 as an Opposition Challenge to Proposed Statement # 3. So I have gone back and edited the earlier post to add this "Supplementary Challenge".

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

Dilip why bother engaging with someone who behaves like a pompous officious bureaucrat? Life is too short.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

I consider your Post # 299 as an Opposition Challenge to Proposed Statement # 3. So I have gone back and edited the earlier post to add this "Supplementary Challenge".

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Democratic Marxism

DM will tax them, yes. This keeps the wage gap from widening in society.


Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

What? Legal theft is the way to reduce the wage gap? Can you not think of a moral way of doing that? And fyi, entrepreneurs give wages, they do not depend on 'wages'.

And you say: other perks in society will have to be awarded.
Very generous! They would not really care for the crumbs DM would 'generously' throw at them, after subjecting them to draconian communist 'laws'.

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism

Statements Generally Accepted by Democratic Marxists in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem. They represent the partisan political spectrum and the issue spectrum.

Statement # 3 (Proposed)

Like any society, Democratic Marxism needs the above-average intelligence and discipline of its more entrepreneurial citizens.

DM will tax them, yes. This keeps the wage gap from widening in society.

So to entice them to make their contribution to society of which they are capable, other perks in society will have to be awarded.

Supporting Reasons

It is in our human nature to wish to be both recognized, and rewarded somehow, for our achievements and contributions to society. Expecting true, unrealistic idealism is bound to fail.

Opposition Challenge - Dilip Panjwani - Post # 297 - 23/9/4

The only ones with 'Duties' instead of 'Rights', and whose hard-earned wealth and property are open to being legally stolen, are the smart and disciplined amongst us, the entrepreneurs, who actually are the catalysts in building society's wealth...

[Secretarial Note - given the proposed Statement # 3, I believe Dilip's objection is more targeted at the wealth issue, than the "rights" issue (I recognize this is a fine distinction). There will be one week to Challenge this Secretarial Ruling; deadline: Tues., 23/9/10 @ 11:59 PM EDT). But since I am trying to guess Dilip's intentions, if he disagrees with my Ruling, and wants the Challenge to be of Statement # 2, instead of the proposed Statement # 3, I will make such change.]

Supplementary Challenge - Dilip Panjwani - Post # 299 - 23/9/4

What? Legal theft is the way to reduce the wage gap?

Processing

There is one week (Deadline: Tuesday, 23/9/10 @ 11:59 PM EDT) for a "Revision Challenge" or an "Opposition Challenge". If there is no Challenge, then this Statement # 3 joins the list of DM Statements.

Note re Other Group Processing

Phase I - Interpretation Challenge (That this is an inaccurate Statement, as seen by the other group itself) : If there is no "Challenge" within one week , then the Statement is generally accepted, and joins the list of generally accepted DM Statements.

Phase II - Opposition Challenge (That this is an unworkable position or false statement): Cannot be processed until the Statement itself becomes generally accepted by the DM's in this group.


Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Human Self-Governance

Democratic Marxism respects:

a. Human Rights

b. Constitutional Rights

c. Worker's Rights

d. Rights accorded by law.


Bob A (As Group Secretary)

The only ones with 'Duties' instead of 'Rights', and whose hard-earned wealth and property are open to being legally stolen, are the smart and disciplined amongst us, the entrepreneurs, who actually are the catalysts in building society's wealth...

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Human Self-Government

(Problem: NWO [New World Order] – Label of the Left; GR [The Great Reset] - Label of the Right)

(Started: 22/12/5)




Overview

A. Statistics


Week # 7 (23/8/28 – 23/9/3 - 7 days)

(Sometimes Adjusted for no. of days)

Weekly Stats:
.....................................................2023 Average..........................................................2023 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(7 wks.)............Responses/Day....Resp./Day......... (5 wks.).

…17.........................23.......................30..........................2......................1........................4

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's Stats are fairly consistent with those of the prior week. However, they are behind the year to date.


CT'ers are becoming aware that this issue in human life dwarfs even the issues of Negative Climate Change, and the past COVID-19 pandemic. We have a core group of CT'ers now following this thread, which had somewhat languished in the early stages.

B. The Anti-NWO/GR Position

Conspiracy Theory?

There is much disagreement whether the New World Order/Great Reset project actually exists. There are those who simply relegate it to the realm of “conspiracy theories”, such as Qanon.

The Time Line

But there are others, including myself, who assert that already a covert group of much influence is directing government law and policy, in nations across the globe, and incrementally implementing the pieces of an agenda for an eventual one-world government. We fear this centralization is not good in the long run. And it is not good, even if this group sees itself as a “Benevolent Dictatorship”.

C. A Proposal (Possible; not Utopian)

1. Nations dissolve themselves, and, in the process, devolve power down to Local Political Units (LPU's).
2. Eventually the world will become a “collection of villages”.
3. The goal is to significantly lessen the power of all governments, so as to make any geopolitical conflicts less dangerous for the globe as a whole.
4. It will not get rid of corruption, abuse of power, or tin-pot dictators.......but will limit the damage they can do.

We invite CT'ers to consider this position and to post here, their thoughts on it.

D. The “Conversation Format” Protocol

In discussing items in this thread, we use the "Conversation Format" protocol. It operates on four main principles:

1. A member can propose a Statement they consider “generally accepted, with Supporting Reasons.

2. If there is no proposed Revision of a Statement, with Reasons, nor Opposition Challenge, within one week, then the Statement is considered "generally-accepted”. (This follows the Quebec parliamentary procedure: No objection to a motion put, then no discussion or voting necessary - motion is considered passed by a majority, at least).

3. If the Statement is Challenged, with reasons, then the proposer of the Statement, and any others supporting the Statement can post Supplementary Supporting Reasons. Those opposing the Statement may also post supplementary Challenges, with Reasons.

4. The goal is not "unanimity", though that would be nice. The goal is "majority" acceptance of a Statement; this gives it the status of "commonly-accepted".

E. NWO/GR Thread “Responses”

There are some new articles out there from time to time on NWO/GR. The articles come in different forms: on globalization on many fronts, world free-trade, and higher governments stomping on the wishes of the local residents, and their local governments, etc..

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the NWO/GR posts of interest they see elsewhere. Toss in a post when you see one. The topic of human self-governance is one of the most important in our human future, especially if some covert group of influential people is trying to have us give up our human rights, and take control!

Do you want a global autocratic totalitarian government (Even if “benevolent”)?

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.

2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least twice per week, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is going to be necessary that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.


Bob A (Anti-NWO/As Participant)