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

[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 & Update

[Part I of 3 parts]

1. Statistics


Week # 6 (23/8/21 – 23/8/27 - 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.............(5 wks.)............Responses/Day....Resp./Day......... (5 wks.).

…23.........................76.......................30..........................1......................10........................4

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's Stats took a substantial drop over those of the prior week – this was due to the drop in the Responses that week as well. We are also behind the year to date.

The stats confirm that with more posts, our viewership will rise. 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, and last week has again slowed a bit.

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”)?

2. 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.

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.

3. The Anti-NWO/GR Position

The Time Line

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.

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”.

4. 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.

5. The “Conversation Format” Protocol

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

1. If there is no proposed revision of a Statement put forward as a "Commonly-Held" Statement, nor objection, within one week, then the Statement is considered "commonly-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).

2. If the Statement is challenged, with reasons, then the proposer of the Statement, and any others supporting the Statement must raise a defense, with reasons. Of course, it is also open to those supporting the Challenge to comment and “supplement” the Challenge.

3. 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".

6. Commonly Accepted Statements re Human Self-Governance (NWO/GR)

A. Statements

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.

[See Parts II & III below]

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Bob Armstrong]

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 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

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: 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.

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 .

[See Part I above; See Part III below]

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Bob Armstrong]

Human Self-Government

[Part III of 3; See Parts I & II above]

Appendix B

Democratic Marxist Statements

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

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.

Statement # 2 (Proposed)

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.

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.

Appendix C– Group Secretary Rulings

Ruling # P1 (Procedural)

When a new Statement is proposed, it must be put forward with some supportive reasons. These reasons are preferred to be in Executive Summary form. Where the Support Reasons are extensive, they will not be carried forward, but the Post # and date will be. The proposer is free to submit a replacement executive summary Statement, and it will then be used.

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Bob Armstrong]

Maureen Kelly Fb Post (23/8/30)

[Bob Armstrong]

Mike Edwards Fb Post (23/8/24)

[Bob Armstrong]

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 # 9 (Proposed)

Subject - Libertarian Position on Negative Climate Change

Request of Dilip Panjwani

Since Dilip is our main Libertarian in this CT'er group, I (As Participant) was wondering if you might like to take on the Challenge of drafting for our review, some Statement # 9 on Libertarianism and Negative Climate Change, which you believe would be generally acceptable to the Libertarians in our group?

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Bob Armstrong]

The Nature of Libertarianism

Question by CT'er Pargat Perrer (In thread on Donald Trump that I felt was better dealt with here, where we have been discussing Libertarianism at length, if not ad nauseam)

Libertarianism is the rule by judges; the whole legal system is Judicial Precedents on Natural Law interpretations; the government is really just the public's secretarial system to keep decisions, where needed, implemented. Otherwise people just go about their business trying not to harm each other or society (Except in "fair competition").
There is also 24/7 Surveillance for justice and order.

Despite the mouthing of freedom by Libertarianism, this is a very ordered and rigid state that is the consequence, especially 24/7 Surveillance for enforcement to better marshal evidence when matters do come to court. Is this really a Fascist State in Sheep's Clothing?

[Secretary's best attempt to edit the original question in the other thread, given knowledge of Libertarianism in this thread.]

Response

Despite the Surveillance aspect (Which does horrify me), I personally would NOT categorize a Libertarian State as "Fascist".

My Reasons

1. Under Fascism, all power resides in the State as an authoritarian government.....and with usually one dictator head of state. But in Libertarianism, all power resides in the Judiciary; the government is merely the executive secretary of the citizens.

2.Under Fascism, all assets belong to the State (With some personal ownership), for the "use and benefit" of the citizens. (Old-Style USSR Communism, though holding title to all assets, claimed they only held it in trust for the workers, who really owned it).
Libertarianism is "Wild West Capitalism", with as much private ownership as possible, and no regulation if possible (Harm is dealt with by Judicial Compensation Payment).

3. Fascism, like old-style USSR Communism, tramples on rights; Libertarianism seeks to maximize rights by non-interference by Government (And the Judiciary only limits freedom as a result of a trial/Decision where someone alleges harm).

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[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.)

[Secretarial Note: In Post # 291 (23/8/31), Dilip Panjwani was invited to put forward a proposed Libertarian Statement # 9 on Libertarianism & Negative Climate Change. He has not responded. So the floor is open again for a proposed Statement # 9.]

Statement # 9 (Proposed - Bob Armstrong - Post # 293 - 23/8/31)



When we add "human nature" to "power" in governing, corruption and abuse of power result. This is the reason all political human self-governance structures have resulted in:

I) the creation of an elite group who wield the power, and
II) the exploitation, by the elite group, of the powerless and marginalized segments of society.

Supporting Reasons

Human nature has both a "light" and a "dark" element. When born, we lean towards the light, like a flower. But the unjust traumas of life cause us to be more aware of the "dark side", and we retrench, and believe that self-interest is important (Which it is). But telling healthy self-interest and anti-social self-interest from each other, and deciding to do the right thing, becomes more difficult, the more wounded we become.

Wounded individuals, as well as well-intentioned individuals, get elected in representative government. It is difficult in campaigns to tell the sheep from the goats, or, the wolf in sheep's clothing.

Processing

There is one week for a "Revision" and/or an "Opposition" Challenge; deadline: Thursday, Sept. 7 @ 11:59 PM EDT.
If there is no Challenge, then the Statement # 9 is generally accepted and joins the list of generally accepted Statements.

[Note: This Statement arose out of exchanges on the "Donald Trump" thread on this board; I acknowledge the contribution of Peter McKillop (Who can now disown me if he wishes!)]

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[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)



Update
[Part I of 2]

A. Statements On Government Generally

(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.

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.

Statement # 9 (Proposed)

When we add "human nature" to "power" in governing, corruption and abuse of power result. This is the reason all political human self-governance structures have resulted in:

I) the creation of an elite group who wield the power, and
II) the exploitation, by the elite group, of the powerless and marginalized segments of society.

Supporting Reasons

Human nature has both a "light" and a "dark" element. When born, we lean towards the light, like a flower. But the unjust traumas of life cause us to be more aware of the "dark side", and we retrench, and believe that self-interest is important (Which it is). But telling healthy self-interest and anti-social self-interest from each other, and deciding to do the right thing, becomes more difficult, the more wounded we become.

Wounded individuals, as well as well-intentioned individuals, get elected in representative government. It is difficult in campaigns to tell the sheep from the goats, or, the wolf in sheep's clothing.

Processing

There is one week for a "Revision" and/or an "Opposition" Challenge; deadline: Thursday, Sept. 7 @ 11:59 PM EDT.
If there is no Challenge, then the Statement # 9 is generally accepted and joins the list of generally accepted Statements.

[Note: This Statement arose out of exchanges on the "Donald Trump" thread on this board; I acknowledge the contribution of Peter McKillop (Who can now disown me if he wishes!)]

[See Part II below]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Human Self-Governance

[Part II; see Part I above]

B. Statements on 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.

[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.]

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.


Statement # 2

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: 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.

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 .


C. Statements on 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.

[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.]

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.

Statement # 2 (Proposed)

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.

D. Group Secretary Rulings

Ruling # P1 (Procedural)

When a new Statement is proposed, it must be put forward with some supportive reasons. These reasons are preferred to be in Executive Summary form. Where the Support Reasons are extensive, they will not be carried forward, but the Post # and date will be. The proposer is free to submit a replacement executive summary Statement, and it will then be used.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[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)

[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]

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]

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]

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)