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

[Bob Armstrong]

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.

Proposal to Create Democratic Marxism (DM) Statements

In my Post # 171 (23/8/13) I proposed that this CT'er group create a series of Statements generally accepted by Democratic Marxists in this Group, as we have done with Libertarianism. This would help all members to have a better grasp of positions being put forward in discussions by DM's.

I asked for comments on this proposal, and there was, as usual, a one-week deadline.

Comments in Support

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 194 - 23/8/15 - "Yes, certainly.
Look forward to how you explain away the suffocating system as being good for us..."

Comments in Opposition

Sid Belzberg - Post # 195 - 23/8/15 - "In my opinion no, despite Dillips saying "yes" purely for entertainment value that I can understand. If you think you will
suck us in with the "this time it is different story" this is the wrong address and the wrong thread for that."

Processing: Two CT'ers here support the proposal (Bob A, Dilip); one CT'er is in opposition (Sid).

Conclusion: This CT'er group will create the DM Statements.


[Note: I, as a Participant, will soon propose the first DM Statement by this group].

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

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 # 1 (Proposed)

Democratic Marxism operates within a democratic multi-party electoral system. It can be voted into government; it can be voted out of government. There will be no one-party system.

Processing Protocol

Phase I - Interpretation Challenge (That this is an inaccurate Statement, as seen by Democrat Marxism) : If there is no "Challenge" within one week (Deadline: Tues., Aug. 29 @ 11:59 PM EDT), 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): Cannot be processed until the Statement itself becomes generally accepted by the DM's in this group.

Bob A (As Participant; DM)

[Bob Armstrong]

Human Self-Government (The NWO/GR Problem)

Group Secretary Rulings - Procedural

Ruling # P1

Background

Issue

Should it be mandatory that when a new Statement is proposed, it must be put forward with some supportive reasons. To date, we have not demanded this. These reasons must be in Executive Summary form.

The reason I support this change in protocol is that if there are supportive reasons given for the new Statement, someone with little knowledge of the issue will learn something about what the issue is about, and, maybe, some hints about how and where they can do their own research to confirm for themselves the Statement or to challenge the proposed Statement.

Processing

After one week no member of the group has come forward to "oppose" this proposed protocol change.

Conclusion

New Proposed Statements must be accompanied by a short, executive summary, set of reasons.
(If the Support Texts are extensive, they will have to be shortened by the proposer; these Statements are often repeated and updated in future postings, and extensive support texts, with graphs/charts/ long book or report quotes, etc., will simply become too unwieldy; but the Post # & date of any Extensive support texts will be noted for those viewers wanting more information than the executive summary.)

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC)

This is a new international organization being spear-headed by Canadian psychologist, Jordan Petersen.

Jordan said (23/8/16) in a release announcing the project's launch:

“ARC is being established as a new movement of hopeful vision, local, national and international in its aim and scope, aimed at the collective, voluntary establishment of an alternative way forwards."

To us, this seems to be a formidable opposition to the covert/overt New World Order/Great Reset.

But it has clearly marked out its territory as on the far right of the political spectrum.

At the same time, any opposition against the NWO/GR is welcomed.

BUT.........

expect some differences between unexpected bedfellows (The left is also apoplectic about the already well-forward development of the one-world, benevolent, authoritarian government/dictatorship).

ARC is set to host its inaugural international conference in London, Ontario, Canada, in October 2023.

The Counter Signal, a Canadian extreme right media, weighed in:

"Dr. Peterson's bold stand for free speech has been met with an alarming authoritarian response. The complaints against him range from his views on Covid-19 vaccines to criticisms of political figures. This decision sets a chilling precedent for our individual freedoms."

Recent Update: Court Ruling (On an appeal by Jordan to overturn the recent decision by the College of Psychologists of Ontario (COP) requiring Jordan Petersen to take remedial training for some of his public comments on social media):

COP Decision UPHELD/Appeal Dismissed.

[Note: COP decision decided that some social media tweets of Jordan were ‘degrading’ and ‘unprofessional’ tweets, and imposed the penalty referred to above.]

We'll keep you updated.

TRN (Author – Bob Armstrong)

Copyright – 23/8/23 – The REAL News

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Concerning Human Self-Government (The NWO/GR Problem)
(Generally Accepted by CT'ers Here)

Statement # 7 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong - Post # 198 - 23/8/16)

Since people should be able to focus on higher activities of life (Philosophy, the Arts, Politics, etc.), automation will be a key factor in making this happen. It can free people from lower, less rewarding, work and life tasks. So some citizens will be able to dedicate more time to public life and government, and how to improve it.

Processing

After one week, no CT'er has launched a Challenge.

Conclusion

The Statement # 7 is “generally accepted” and joins the list of generally accepted Statements.


Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statement # 8 (Proposed by Pargat Perrer - Post # 218 - 23/8/18)

Libertarianism will employ 24/7 digital surveillance of every citizen in public spaces, including not just video but audio as well. This will help Natural Law enforcement to have the facts necessary to make discretionary decisions on whether to lay charges for breach of the Natural Law or other laws. It will also provide needed evidence for court hearings, where the issue is whether the Natural Law provided an exemption for non-compliance. This is seen as a necessary over-ride of the citizen's right of privacy and freedom from surveillance.

[Note: Group secretary attempted to extract Statement # 8 from the Post # 218 (23/8/18) of Pargat Perrer. Pargat has not suggested any revision to date.]

Processing for Opposition:

No “Opposition Challenge” (that Statement is untenable/unworkable/false/not an accurate Statement about the multi-verse/ etc.) has been formally launched within the one week ; some postings indicated some disagreements of some kinds, but it was not clear what was being challenged. Those objecting had to post a formal "Opposition Challenge".

Conclusion

The Statement # 8 is generally accepted and joins the list of Libertarian Statements.

Revision Challenge - Dilip Panjwani - Post # x, 23/8/?

An "Inaccuracy Challenge" (that this is not an accurate Statement of Libertarian Policy) has been launched.

Libertarianism will employ 24/7 digital surveillance of every citizen in public spaces, including not just video but audio as well. This will help Natural Law enforcement to have the facts necessary to make discretionary decisions on whether to lay charges for breach of the Natural Law or other laws. It will also provide needed evidence for court hearings, where the issue is whether the Natural Law provided an exemption for non-compliance. This is seen as a necessary over-ride of the citizen's right of privacy and freedom from surveillance for the purpose of justice and order.

[Secretary attempt to formalize Dilip's post previously seen but no longer locateable by Secretary; Dilip can revise as necessary.]

Revision Challenge: Add to the last sentence: "for the purpose of justice and order".

Support for Revision Challenge: It is important to give the reason a number of rights are being over-ridden.

Processing: The proposed revision has one week from the date of the Challenge to be challenged as not Libertarian policy; deadline: [Since cannot locate Post, set from the date of the last post re the Challenge] Sunday, Aug. 27 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Libertarianism

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 legal systems try to encapsulate under the living, evolving system of laws and sub-laws, which Natural Law counter-intuitively sets out to abolish.

Summary Statement:
Therefore, the very idea of a single one-size-fits-all Natural Law is illogical and is doomed to failure.

Processing: Within one week, no CT'er came forward with any comments, Revision Challenges, or non-Libertarian Opposition Challenges on this Opposition Statement.

Conclusion

These Opposition Statements will now be inserted into our list of Libertarian Statements as a "Note" to the Statements.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Libertarianism

Statement # 8 (Proposed by Pargat Perrer - Post # 218 - 23/8/18)

Libertarianism will employ 24/7 digital surveillance of every citizen in public spaces, including not just video but audio as well. This will help Natural Law enforcement to have the facts necessary to make discretionary decisions on whether to lay charges for breach of the Natural Law or other laws. It will also provide needed evidence for court hearings, where the issue is whether the Natural Law provided an exemption for non-compliance. This is seen as a necessary over-ride of the citizen's right of privacy and freedom from surveillance.

[Note: Group secretary attempted to extract Statement # 8 from the Post # 218 (23/8/18) of Pargat Perrer. Pargat has not suggested any revision to date.]

Processing for Opposition:

No “Opposition Challenge” (that Statement is untenable/unworkable/false/not an accurate Statement about the multi-verse/ etc.) has been formally launched within the one week ; some postings indicated some disagreements of some kinds, but it was not clear what was being challenged. Those objecting had to post a formal "Opposition Challenge".

Conclusion

The Statement # 8 is generally accepted and joins the list of Libertarian Statements.

Revision Challenge - Dilip Panjwani - Post # x, 23/8/?

An "Inaccuracy Challenge" (that this is not an accurate Statement of Libertarian Policy) has been launched.

Libertarianism will employ 24/7 digital surveillance of every citizen in public spaces, including not just video but audio as well. This will help Natural Law enforcement to have the facts necessary to make discretionary decisions on whether to lay charges for breach of the Natural Law or other laws. It will also provide needed evidence for court hearings, where the issue is whether the Natural Law provided an exemption for non-compliance. This is seen as a necessary over-ride of the citizen's right of privacy and freedom from surveillance for the purpose of justice and order.

[Secretary attempt to formalize Dilip's post previously seen but no longer locateable by Secretary; Dilip can revise as necessary but he has not done so.]

Revision Challenge: Add to the last sentence: "for the purpose of justice and order".

Support for Revision Challenge: It is important to give the reason a number of rights are being over-ridden.

Processing: After one week, no CT'er has Challenged the Revision Statement # 8 as not being Libertarian policy.

Conclusion

The revised Statement # 8 is generally accepted by Libertarians in this group, and joins the list of Libertarian Statements.


Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Libertarianism

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 # 3

The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Proposed Revision:

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one does something which even the vast majority thinks is harming him/herself and illogical, one is free to do so.

[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Dilip and his Revised Statement # 3; Dilip has agreed with the Secretary's version (Post # 256 - 23/8/19)

Revision Challenge Reasons (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Dilip Panjwani, Post # 249 - 23/8/19

Sid and Neal and IM O'Donnell may well be absolutely right, though in the minority, that a young healthy person should not take modRNA vaccines... and no one has the right to force them to do so. (We know that it is very very unlikely that an unvaccinated person can harm someone who is already vaccinated, by transmission). The other examples are MAID even in the absence of a terminal dying state, and abortions which every woman has a right to in Canada (with all the scientific evidence we have to date indicating that the fetus does not have 'individual consciousness', but is just a part of the mother's body).

Supplementing Revision Challenge - Bob Armstrong Post # 259 - 23/8/20 (As Participant)

I have always believed Libertarians felt an individual was entitled to do self-harm, under their view of "Freedom". This is why I had independently, as a Participant, originally included a Statement on this when drafting our original Statement # 3. And, I am satisfied with Dilip's proposed Revision of Statement # 3.

However I am not in agreement with part of Dilip's reasons for challenge.

I specifically claim that "a young healthy person should take modRNA vaccines, if necessary to ward off/minimize intensity of a particular illness". But I do agree that they have the freedom not to be forced into taking them.......however.........they may then suffer personal negative consequences due to the need to protect society at large (They may become sick and be a possible transmitter to those who are still vulnerable [No immunity at that point]).

I agree with Dilip's position on MAID.

I agree with abortion, but I reserve judgment on Dilip's assertion that from conception to birth, "the fetus does not have 'individual consciousness', but is just a part of the mother's body".

Processing: No CT'er came forward to Challenge the proposed revision within one week.

Conclusion

The Statement will be revised as requested and joins the list of Libertarian Statements.

Bob A (As Group Secretary).

[Bob Armstrong]

Libertarianism

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 a spectrum of partisan political opinion and an issue spectrum.




Wikipedia - The Libertarian Party is a political party in the United States that promotes civil liberties, non-interventionism, laissez-faire capitalism, and limiting the size and scope of government.

Founder: David Nolan
Founded: December 11, 1971, Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States
Headquarters: Alexandria, Virginia, United States

Libertarian Statements

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.

[Note: 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 legal systems try to encapsulate under the living, evolving system of laws and sub-laws, which Natural Law counter-intuitively sets out to abolish.

Summary Statement:

Therefore, the very idea of a single one-size-fits-all Natural Law is illogical and is doomed to failure.]

Statement # 2

But the main problem in current society is the "absolute enforcement" of law (Zero tolerance), even when such enforcement is illogical. An example might be giving a citizen a traffic ticket for going through a Stop Sign at midnight when no other pedestrian or vehicle is in sight. The laws are to be honoured in "spirit", though not always in the "letter".

Statement # 3

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one does something which even the vast majority thinks is harming him/herself and illogical, one is free to do so.

Statement # 4

The Natural Law operates to bring common sense to law enforcement and to maximize the Freedom of the Individual. Thus, in certain circumstances (As in the traffic example above), the Natural Law overrides the actual relevant law, to provide an exception to the following of the law.

Statement # 5

Those in society charged with enforcement of law (Such as the police), have discretion to recognize the operation of the Natural Law in certain circumstances, and treat the conduct of the individual as not illegal. Thus they will not lay any charge against the individual.

Statement # 6

Where, by the conduct of the individual, someone breaks a law, and the Natural Law does not apply (There has been harm to another/society), the police/government can lay a charge and bring the individual before the court.

Statement # 7

The court shall verify the breaking of the law, and impose a penalty. Penalties should usually involve a "Compensation Payment" of some kind to the harmed individual/society at large. This will assist in deterring actions in society that are harmful to others/society.

Statement # 8

Libertarianism will employ 24/7 digital surveillance of every citizen in public spaces, including not just video but audio as well. This will help Natural Law enforcement to have the facts necessary to make discretionary decisions on whether to lay charges for breach of the Natural Law or other laws. It will also provide needed evidence for court hearings, where the issue is whether the Natural Law provided an exemption for non-compliance. This is seen as a necessary over-ride of the citizen's right of privacy and freedom from surveillance for the purpose of justice and order.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Note: Sorry for the duplication.......it seems only an admin can delete a post.

Libertarianism

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 a spectrum of partisan political opinion and an issue spectrum.




Wikipedia - The Libertarian Party is a political party in the United States that promotes civil liberties, non-interventionism, laissez-faire capitalism, and limiting the size and scope of government.

Founder: David Nolan
Founded: December 11, 1971, Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States
Headquarters: Alexandria, Virginia, United States

Libertarian Statements

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.

[Note: 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 legal systems try to encapsulate under the living, evolving system of laws and sub-laws, which Natural Law counter-intuitively sets out to abolish.

Summary Statement:

Therefore, the very idea of a single one-size-fits-all Natural Law is illogical and is doomed to failure.]

Statement # 2

But the main problem in current society is the "absolute enforcement" of law (Zero tolerance), even when such enforcement is illogical. An example might be giving a citizen a traffic ticket for going through a Stop Sign at midnight when no other pedestrian or vehicle is in sight. The laws are to be honoured in "spirit", though not always in the "letter".

Statement # 3

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one does something which even the vast majority thinks is harming him/herself and illogical, one is free to do so.

Statement # 4

The Natural Law operates to bring common sense to law enforcement and to maximize the Freedom of the Individual. Thus, in certain circumstances (As in the traffic example above), the Natural Law overrides the actual relevant law, to provide an exception to the following of the law.

Statement # 5

Those in society charged with enforcement of law (Such as the police), have discretion to recognize the operation of the Natural Law in certain circumstances, and treat the conduct of the individual as not illegal. Thus they will not lay any charge against the individual.

Statement # 6

Where, by the conduct of the individual, someone breaks a law, and the Natural Law does not apply (There has been harm to another/society), the police/government can lay a charge and bring the individual before the court.

Statement # 7

The court shall verify the breaking of the law, and impose a penalty. Penalties should usually involve a "Compensation Payment" of some kind to the harmed individual/society at large. This will assist in deterring actions in society that are harmful to others/society.

Statement # 8

Libertarianism will employ 24/7 digital surveillance of every citizen in public spaces, including not just video but audio as well. This will help Natural Law enforcement to have the facts necessary to make discretionary decisions on whether to lay charges for breach of the Natural Law or other laws. It will also provide needed evidence for court hearings, where the issue is whether the Natural Law provided an exemption for non-compliance. This is seen as a necessary over-ride of the citizen's right of privacy and freedom from surveillance for the purpose of justice and order.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[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 # 1.

World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.

Support – Bob Armstrong - Post # 117 – 23/7/21:

“The Statement does not refer to a societal minority imposing its government on a societal majority. This statement refers to the fact that in the family of earliest man, the male set the rules for his female partner(s) and children - a minority of one. Later in groups, it was a "chief", or a "king"......it is individuals determining a government structure for all. Then, for example in the United Kingdom, the wealthy nobles, barons, dukes, etc. force the King to share power with them, a minority (The Elite), and then laws got promulgated satisfactory to them (Not much consideration of the welfare of the majority). The first Statement refers to pre-democracy times.”

Statement # 2.

Over time, electors have democratically accepted the government structure proposed at the time, usually some variant of earlier forms of government (Who are "electors" has evolved over time).

Support – Bob Armstrong – Post # 122 – 23/7/24:

“The statement does not say that the people democratically accepted the government structure "imposed"! It says the government structure "proposed".

The general sentiment that people, in a democracy, "vote for the party of their choice" is true. The elector has become, now, in a democracy, responsible for the society from then on (Assuming it remains a democracy). In a democracy, everything is subject to the will of the majority. Electors around the world have voted to adopt capitalism, social democracy, socialism, Democratic Marxism, Communism and Fascism.....by electing parties with these various policies, the people are voting for the structuring of their government.

There is also, almost world-wide, the acceptance of "representative" government - this is being democratically adopted.”

Statement # 3.

Some societies have had imposed on them, or chosen by election, a dictatorship (Rule by the One). However, some societies have chosen by election, a democracy (Rule by the Majority).

Support – Bob Armstrong – Post # Post # 129 - 23/7/31

Democracy means Rule by the Majority. But the point of the post is that that some societies are not democratic. They have not adopted "rule by the majority". They have adopted by election, or had imposed on them, dictatorships (Rule of the One).

Statement # 4.

People have passed "Constitutions" and developed Courts in order to have human rights respected and to prohibit the tyranny of the majority.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15)

“... even a cursory peek at histories of nations will reveal multiple examples of 'tyranny of the majority'; it exists even today...”

Statement # 5.

People (A majority of the local government, at least) have the right to agree with each other on a government structure for themselves and can join hands to act jointly to govern themselves, and act in a way they feel "benefits themselves and humanity", so long as there is a respect for basic human rights.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15):

“...the sad part about representative democracies is that the politicians who get elected do not serve the majority...they make fools of the majority (and minority), and sometimes it takes more than one term for the electors to realize that they are being hoodwinked, and then they elect a different party which hoodwinks them in a different way. The so-called majority does not rule, but decides which of the political parties they are less mad at. If only people could govern themselves, ........, where they may join hands with like-minded co-citizens in certain ways, that would be as close to Utopia as one can get...”

Statement # 6

“Direct” democracy is preferable to “Representative” Democracy, if implementable. Usually, direct democracy has been practiced in small, local political units. But with today's technology, direct democracy voting can be used within larger political units.

Statement # 7

Since people should be able to focus on higher activities of life (Philosophy, the Arts, Politics, etc.), automation will be a key factor in making this happen. It can free people from lower, less rewarding, work and life tasks. So some citizens will be able to dedicate more time to public life and government, and how to improve it.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[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 (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.

Bob A (As Participant)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by Democratic Marxists in 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 # 1

Democratic Marxism operates within a democratic multi-party electoral system. It can be voted into government; it can be voted out of government. There will be no one-party system.

Processing

After one week, no CT'er has challenged that this is not Democratic Marxist policy, nor has there been a post in "Opposition" (One can always make an opposition challenge to any Statement at any time).

Conclusion

Statement # 1 is generally accepted by the Democratic Marxists, and others knowledgeable about DM, in this group, and is the first Democratic Marxist Statement.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by Democratic Marxists in 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 # 2

Democratic Marxism respects:

a. Human Rights

b. Constitutional Rights

c. Worker's Rights

d. Rights accorded by law.

Processing

There is one week (Deadline: Wed., 23/9/6) for a "Revision Challenge" or an "Opposition Challenge". If there is no Challenge, then this Statement # 2 joins the list of DM Statements.

Bob A (As Participant)