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

[Dilip Panjwani]

Bob's 'logic':

So no one else posts for either side of going ahead and stealing the car. The position of the majority posting (2) is to steal the car; only 1 CT'er doesn't want the car stolen. There are 27 who have not spoken. Under the protocol that the "silent members" agree to join with the posting majority, 27 votes go to stealing the car. So what is the vote:

Don't Steal the Car - 1 CT'er (Proposer)
Steal the Car - 29 (2 Challengers + 27 silent CT votes)

Bob really wants the car to be stolen, by hook or by crook, doesn't he?

[Fred Harvey]

There once was an internet poll
With four active guys on a roll
An idiot with too many years
A conspiracy theorist with fears
A Libertarian fan....and a troll

Well this "silent member" in no way supports the "majority vote"! And I suspect that most of the other silent members only tune in here for a chuckle from time to time. Really guys, step back and take a look at some of your posts....

[Pargat Perrer]

Bob's 'logic':

So no one else posts for either side of going ahead and stealing the car. The position of the majority posting (2) is to steal the car; only 1 CT'er doesn't want the car stolen. There are 27 who have not spoken. Under the protocol that the "silent members" agree to join with the posting majority, 27 votes go to stealing the car. So what is the vote:

Don't Steal the Car - 1 CT'er (Proposer)
Steal the Car - 29 (2 Challengers + 27 silent CT votes)

Bob really wants the car to be stolen, by hook or by crook, doesn't he?

Dilip makes up a story about 2 people wanting to steal a car, and now he has turned this entire effort of Bob A.'s into the moral equivalent of stealing a car -- all without any input from anyone else! In other words, this moral equivalent of stealing a car is ENTIRELY A FABRICATION IN THE MIND OF DILIP.

So I have to ask, who is the one that is acting in a dictatorial manner here? Is it Bob A. who is tendering for initial statements (some of which he provides himself) and also tendering for opposition statements, or is it Dilip who is simply making up a fabricated moral equivalency and unilaterally declaring this equivalency as fact?

In a court of Canadian law, Dilip would be thrown out on his ass.

We can turn Dilip's ridiculous notion on its head and simultaneously destroy his Libertarian ideology.

Instead of saying 2 people want to steal a car, let's say the 2 people want to build the world's least-polluting car. The victim becomes the CEO of the company building the world's worst-polluting car, which happens to be popular because it goes really fast.

Dilip would now be defending the guy making the worst-polluting car, and he would be doing it in the name of Libertarianism. Meanwhile, he says LIbertarianism is about entrepeneurs going out and making things better.

ROFLMAO

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip makes up a story about 2 people wanting to steal a car, and now he has turned this entire effort of Bob A.'s into the moral equivalent of stealing a car -- all without any input from anyone else! In other words, this moral equivalent of stealing a car is ENTIRELY A FABRICATION IN THE MIND OF DILIP.

So I have to ask, who is the one that is acting in a dictatorial manner here? Is it Bob A. who is tendering for initial statements (some of which he provides himself) and also tendering for opposition statements, or is it Dilip who is simply making up a fabricated moral equivalency and unilaterally declaring this equivalency as fact?

In a court of Canadian law, Dilip would be thrown out on his ass.

We can turn Dilip's ridiculous notion on its head and simultaneously destroy his Libertarian ideology.

Instead of saying 2 people want to steal a car, let's say the 2 people want to build the world's least-polluting car. The victim becomes the CEO of the company building the world's worst-polluting car, which happens to be popular because it goes really fast.

Dilip would now be defending the guy making the worst-polluting car, and he would be doing it in the name of Libertarianism. Meanwhile, he says LIbertarianism is about entrepeneurs going out and making things better.

ROFLMAO

Did you not read Fred Harvey's post just above, and Sid's post before that, and a few of Bob himself's posts on this matter, in a couple of which he honestly admits that your statements he included in his list should not be attributed to him as they would make him sound idiotic, and another in which he unfortunately has to defend the hypothetical car-stealing analogue of his 'policy' of persisting with your idiotic statements?
Why do you persist in being a nasty troll even when several posters have told you that your posts are such?
This particular post of yours is the most non-sensical you have so far posted.

[Pargat Perrer]

Did you not read Fred Harvey's post just above, and Sid's post before that, and a few of Bob himself's posts on this matter, in a couple of which he honestly admits that your statements he included in his list should not be attributed to him as they would make him sound idiotic, and another in which he unfortunately has to defend the hypothetical car-stealing analogue of his 'policy' of persisting with your idiotic statements?
Why do you persist in being a nasty troll even when several posters have told you that your posts are such?
This particular post of yours is the most non-sensical you have so far posted.

You are really going off the rails.

At this point, I am concerned about your mental health.

Fred Harvey???? LOL that guy is a born sh*t disturber. He only shows up here and posts when he can add fuel to a fire, then he sits back and chuckles as he admitted.

Bob's comment about looking like an idiot was based on YOUR INTERPRETATION that I was saying "common sense doesn't work". I never said ANY SUCH THING.

You can try and try and try, and you can repeat "nasty troll" infinite times, none of it matters. What matters is that your points have been defeated, logically and easily, and you respond with invectives. That is the mark of a loser -- a very sore loser.

It would behoove you much better if you could answer questions, like the one about that "other" PP who is not a LIbertarian party member but is a Conservative party member. Why won't you try and answer why he isn't in the Libertarian party?

Maybe it's because Libertarianism isn't right for him, so you should try and explain why.

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Pargat:

I think the answer re Poilievre being a "Conservative" has to do with "electability"......I would have preferred that he start a "Libertarian Party of Canada and run as the new leader. He would then have been buried so deep we'd never hear from him again.

Bob A (As Participant)

Bob, just a small point, there already is a Libertarian Party in Canada, PP doesn't have to start one. But I get your point about electability. Which only goes to show how shallow politicians of all stripes really are. They like all humans act in their own self-interests. But I feel that you, with your Democratic Marxism efforts, don't have self-interest at heart and so I respect what you are doing. If I had to choose between Libertarianism ("Lawyertarianism") and DM, I'd go DM all the way. I wish we could have tried Bernie Sanders as U.S. President for one term instead of the total wasted years of Trump, if that tells you anything.

[Fred Harvey]

Fred Harvey???? LOL that guy is a born sh*t disturber. He only shows up here and posts when he can add fuel to a fire, then he sits back and chuckles as he admitted.

Guilty as charged! Now what?

[Fred Harvey]

It would behoove you much better if you could answer questions, like the one about that "other" PP who is not a LIbertarian party member but is a Conservative party member. Why won't you try and answer why he isn't in the Libertarian party?

You got your answer from Bob Armstrong! Slight reading problem, or a "mental health" issue?

[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




A. Statements On Human Self-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

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.

Statement # 9

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.

Statement # 10

Statement # 10 (Proposed - Dilip Panjwani - Post # 319 - 23/9/7)

If a hard and smart-working, disciplined family is unable to live comfortably, then something is wrong with their government system being followed.

[Secretarial Note: I have put this Statement forward as Dilip's because it is almost a verbatim quote of him, with some editorial amending to make it a more general statement about government anywhere of any kind. If Dilip disapproves of this, please advise me and I will put it forward under my own name, with some credit to Dilip.]

Supporting Reasons

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 319 - 23/9/7

People will be always struggling to get a decent portion of an ever-shrinking common pie; and the common pie shrinks rapidly despite the running of anything efficiently will become the government's business. But for the bunch of government appointed administrators who do not have their own skin at stake if the system is a mess, the only task will be to convince everyone that the system is very very expensive to run. In this situation it becomes hard for many citizens to live "comfortably".

[Secretarial Note: I have used a quote from Dilip, and edited it to fit as a "Supporting Reason". Dilip is free to give me a substitute or to make whatever revisions he desires, and I will do the editing.]

Supplementary Support 1 - Bob Armstrong - This Post - 23/9/8

Fact

As an example, 50% of Canadians work hard, and save next to nothing.......living paycheck to paycheck. And this in one of the wealthiest countries on the planet. The situation is even much worse in many developing nations.

I fear that the issue causing poverty in the world is not efficiency and excess spending of governments of all types (An example often given is re Canadian socialized medicine. Even if this is so, no Canadian is willing to opt instead for the USA Health Care model, except some extreme, wealthy Canadian Oligarchs). It is the very type of system, not how it is operated (All systems are subject to some inefficiency and luxurious & corrupt spending.

In Capitalism, it is the very dynamic of Capitalism which MUST keep some pool of poor, for there to be a much smaller pool of rich.......this drives ever wider, by necessity, the wage gap. This is why Capitalist Social Democracy arose ........ to try to find ways within Capitalism to moderate the rate of divergence between the haves and the have-nots.

Replacing Capitalism with some type of Democratic Socialism seems at least a first step to citizens living "comfortably".

Processing

There is one week for a "Revision" and/or an "Opposition" Challenge; deadline: Friday, Sept. 15 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Of course, CT'ers can also post "Supplementary Support Reasons".
If there is no Challenge, then the Statement # 10 is generally accepted and joins the list of generally accepted HS-G Statements. To date, there have been no Challenges.

B. 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.

C. Processing

1. Statement can be proposed, with Supporting Reasons.

2. There is one week for someone to launch a Revision Challenge, or an Opposition Challenge, with Supporting Reasons. If there is no challenge, then the Statement is “generally accepted” and joins the list of Statements.


3. If a Challenge is launched, then the onus is on the Challenge Proposer to muster support for the Challenge (To establish that they are not the lone Challenger in the Group). The fact that some time may have passed before the launch of the Challenge does not affect the one week processing time).


4. Silent members of the group are “assumed” to be willing to go with the plurality after voting (Regardless of their opinion, they will be subject to the plurality/majority decision.............by not making a choice, they do in fact make one in our electoral system).

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)

Update

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.

A. . Statements on Libertarianism

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 .

B. 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.

C. Processing

1. Statement can be proposed, with Supporting Reasons.

2. There is one week for someone to launch a Revision Challenge, or an Opposition Challenge, with Supporting Reasons. If there is no challenge, then the Statement is “generally accepted” and joins the list of Statements.


3. If a Challenge is launched, then the onus is on the Challenge Proposer to muster support for the Challenge (To establish that they are not the lone Challenger in the Group). The fact that some time may have passed before the launch of the Challenge does not affect the one week processing time; However, A Revision Challenge does pause the processing of an opposition Challenge....the Opposition must know the wording of the Statement being opposed; if there is a Revision, then the Challenger has the opportunity to revise the out-of-date Challenge; the one week period will then start again).


4. Silent members of the group are “assumed” to be willing to go with the plurality after voting (Regardless of their opinion, they will be subject to the plurality/majority decision.............by not making a choice, they do in fact make one in our electoral system).

Note:

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 Partisan Members in this group.]

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)

Update

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.

A. Statements on Democratic Marxism

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

Democratic Marxism respects:

a. Human Rights

b. Constitutional Rights

c. Worker's Rights

d. Rights accorded by law.

Statement # 3

Democratic Marxism respects all religions, and those not adopting religion, but is neutral between them all. DM takes no position on Atheism, Agnosticism or the Theisms. It will not be a theocracy, but a neutral civic administrator.

Supporting Reasons

Government has no business allying itself with any particular Church, Mosque, Temple, Synagogue. But being respectful of Religions, and being neutral religiously in civic administration, does not necessarily mean that government employees must check the unique trappings of their religion at the door of their civic place of employment.

Despite the conflicts resulting from the actions of various religions, both now and historically, it is the case that all religions teach citizens a model of a good life in society (Though adherents more or less adopt the model). Society in general benefits from this, and in the balance, the positive for society has outweighed the negative.

Processing

There shall be one week to Challenge this DM Statement; deadline: Friday, Sept. 15 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Bob A (As Participant)

B. 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.

C. Processing [re Other Partisan Group]

1. Statement can be proposed, with Supporting Reasons.

2. There is one week for someone to launch a Revision Challenge, or an Opposition Challenge, with Supporting Reasons. If there is no challenge, then the Statement is “generally accepted” and joins the list of Statements.

3. If a Challenge is launched, then the onus is on the Challenge Proposer to muster support for the Challenge (To establish that they are not the lone Challenger in the Group). The fact that some time may have passed before the launch of the Challenge does not affect the one week processing time; However, A Revision Challenge does pause the processing of an opposition Challenge....the Opposition must know the wording of the Statement being opposed; if there is a Revision, then the Challenger has the opportunity to revise the out-of-date Challenge; the one week period will then start again).

4. Silent members of the group are “assumed” to be willing to go with the plurality after voting (Regardless of their opinion, they will be subject to the plurality/majority decision.............by not making a choice, they do in fact make one in our electoral system).

Note:
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 Partisan Members in this group.]



Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

CT'er Group Statements



Congratulations all (Of every gender identification)!

Here are your Statements

Human Self-Government Generally - 10 Statements
Libertarianism - 8 Statements
Democratic Marxism - 3 Statements

[Note: a few in various stages of processing.]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Conservative Party of Canada (Federal)

MP Pierre Poilievre is from the Ontario federal riding of Carlton. He entered Parliament in the riding of Nepean-Carlton. In 2012, locally, Nepean was carved out of his [Poilievre's] riding in the 2012 Canadian federal electoral redistribution; so Poilievre moved from [the town of] Barrhaven to [the town of] Greely to seek election in the more rural Carleton riding. [In the next election] Poilievre narrowly won the seat.

[In 2022], on September 10, Poilievre won the leadership [of the Conservative Party of Canada] on the first ballot, with 68.15% of points and 70.7% of the vote share. It was the first first-ballot victory since the party's 2004 leadership election. Poilievre also won 330 out of 338 electoral districts.^[123][124]

Poilievre has described himself as a libertarian-minded member of his party.

<sup>The above is from Wikipedia.

We can thus see that our work here on Libertarianism is going to give us a big leg up on analyzing the coming federal majority government of the Conservative Party of Canada, with Pierre Poilievre as Prime Minister.</sup>

As a group monitoring Human Self-Government in the world, how far will Poilievre be able to drag the Conservative Party of Canada towards Libertarianism, especially given that there is already a Libertarian Party of Canada (Wikipedia - The Libertarian Party of Canada is a federal political party in Canada founded in 1973. The party subscribes to classical liberal tenets, and its mission is to reduce the size, scope, and cost of government. The leader is Tim Moen.)?

We now have the standards for Libertarianism in our 8 Statements (Not complete, but good). We will be able to monitor the changes Poilievre has already made in the Conservative Party of Canada towards Libertarianism, the future changes he will bring about in the party, and the extent to which we see a majority Conservative Government change the governing structure of Canada itself to be more Libertarian!

Bob A (As Participant)

[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 # 8 (23/9/4 – 11 [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.............(8 wks.)............Responses/Day....Resp./Day......... (8 wks.).

…73.........................17.......................36..........................9......................2........................5

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's Stats are a huge jump over the prior week. They are also very much higher than the average for the year to date.

There is no doubt that the momentum of this thread is rapidly speeding ahead. CT'ers are becoming more 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 (Sometimes quite overt) is directing government law and policy, in nations across the globe. They are incrementally implementing the pieces of an agenda for an eventual authoritarian, but benevolent, 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)

[Bob Armstrong]

World Governments & Alliances



North Korea (Old USSR-Style Communism) strengthens alliance with Russia (Wild-west Capitalism) - It will buy war equipment from Russia; sell munitions to Russia. Kim Un Jong says Russia is in a "just" war in invading Ukraine.

There was a deafening dearth of articles on whether BRICS would/should break up over Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Articles have been written on Ukraine's (Capitalist) Fascist leanings in the past, but that now support from the Capitalist West shows that Ukraine has now broken with its right wing history........an open question in my mind.

And the big question: Do North Korea, Russia, Ukraine, etc honour in practice in their governing, the 10 Statements we have developed on good human self-government?

Bob A (Participant)