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

[Bob Armstrong]

NWO/GR Moves Forward

G20 Announces Plan to Impose Digital Currencies and IDs Worldwide

https://www.theepochtimes.com/busine...&utm_content=1

Bob A (Anti-NWO/GR)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat (Your Post # 351 - 23/9/11);

Thanks for the vote of confidence in Democratic Marxism. There is only one explicit party yet - The Democratic Marxist Party of Ontario. And it has yet to register for the next Ontario Provincial election.

One of its main concerns, besides the nature of governing residents in the Province deserve, is negative climate change - it is not enough to have "adaptation policies" for the climate disasters and mass dislocations coming. We must be clear on the science of the change in climate and very careful in determining how to, first slow the rate of temperature increase, and then implement positive climate change.

Bob A (DM/As Participant)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip (Post # 349 - 23/9/10)

"..he [Bob A] 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?"

Response # 1 - The Statement in Opposition, in the Libertarian List of Statements

When I said that I did not make Pargat Perrer's Objection Statement in the list of Libertarian Statements, it was a factual comment - it was proposed by Pargat, not me. It is an entirely different question what I did when Pargat's Statement, like all Statements, was open to challenge for one week. I did not object; this means I was willing to go with the majority of non-Libertarians who might take up the cause. As I recollect, no non-Libertarain entered into the matter. So the Statement became "generally accepted" for the non-Libertarians.

Question

Was I originally asleep at the switch and not reading Pargat's Statement carefully? When you challenged the Statement's element on "common sense", I did only a quick read, accepted your interpretation of his Statement, and responded that "Common Sense doesn't work" was an "idiotic statement". Pargat has now said you are misinterpreting his Statement in your favour, and that his Statement makes no such claim.

I myself will now go and more carefully read the Opposition Statement, and determine if I must bring a Revision Objection, to a Statement with which I generally agree, as I did when it was first proposed.

Response # 2 - This CT'er Group's Use of The Conversation Format Protocol (TCFP)

Some CT'ers here require a refresher course in CIVICS 101, about how democracy works, the its basic electoral system, in our country, first past the post. I will do a post on this in future, but it is not needed for this response.

I rejected your car theft analogy because you pitted 3 individuals in conflict, and tried to, wrongly, make an analogy to this CT'er group of 30 daily attenders. Your example has nothing to do with civic election.........it is brute force......two can usually beat up one and steal his car.

In the case of this group using TCFP, we have a democratic group of 30, participating freely as a member of a group, not individually only. Where a person does not vote (& does not spoil his ballot), his claim is he is not deciding anything. But our system says that if you do not choose, you are in fact choosing anyways. You are choosing to go along with the decision of the plurality (Or maybe a majority should they be able to get it - almost impossible in our current Canadian system). In effect, you might as well have voted for the winner, because you are agreeing to be under their governance (Even if you don't like them!)

So my rejection of your car theft "analogy" had nothing to do with Pargat's statement, wrongly put into his mouth by you: "Common sense does not work" (At least, this is his claim). I rejected your attempted "analogy" because you don't understand TCFP, which is the governing dynamic in this group, adopted by them when introduced......it's use was never challenged, until just recently.

No CT'er in this group has yet challenged the group to adopt some other group system for decision-making, which this group has chosen to do, not just exchange ideas, and the agree to disagree, and then go home and have a beer. This did happen in the Negative Climate Change Thread. The decision of the group there was to stick with TCFP and NOT go to a "free-form" format, which is inideed a common one here on CT, Fb, etc. As was argued there, this group is capable of more than just learning form others (free-form): they can actually produce good educational material on various issues, as we have done here already - good lists of Statements on:

Human Self-Government
Libertarianism
Democratic Marxism

Bob A (As both Participant & Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Nature of this CT'er Group

Fred Harvey - Post # 335 - 23/9/10

"I suspect that most of the other silent members only tune in here for a chuckle from time to time."



Question: For those of the 30 CT'ers who come here "daily":

Would those who come here "only for entertainment", not for learning (And some entertainment), would you please post your Supporting Reasons for your belief that Fred's Statement is "fact"?

Thanks.

Bob A (As Group Secretary - interested in the true nature and intentions of the group in this thread)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Sid: (Post # 345 - 23/9/10

Sid 1: "I assumed that since you started the thread you were looking for a way to informally come up with statements we all agree with."

Response

I agree. And the whole early life of this thread was in the free-form format you promote.


Sid 2: "Then you perverted it into this pseudo deomcracy.."

Response

Your allegation that I perverted the format into The Conversation Format Protocol (TCFP) is totally false.

Part way into this thread, I saw the potential for these CT'ers who were making good, intelligent, sourced comments. They could produce good educational material.

So I very democratically (NOT pseudo-democratically) directly asked the group is they wished to go in this new direction, with more formality, and me as Group Secretary (This did come along a bit later maybe). Not one CT'er raised any objection to my proposed change in our discussion trial.

In this TCFP, decisions are made democratically, by the method of "objection" (Following Quebec's Parliamentary rules).

I have been proven right. This CT'er Group has produced good Educational Material:


HS-G - 10 Statements
Libertarianism - 8 Statements
Democratic Marxism - 3 Statements

(A few still in process).

Sid 3. - "Everything is wrong with it starting with the fact that rarely do more than three or four CTers participate. You abuse your own rules as exemplified by the fact that you omitted two proposed statements statement 9."

Response

In any democratic group, deciding by majority vote (We do it by the "objection" method), few speak up, but all have one vote.
I have never abused the TCFP rules. You complain about Statement # 9 - Statement # 9 (HS-G) is already passed:

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.

I believe you are meaning to reference Statement # 9 for the CT Negative Climate Change Thread - that group actually voted between TCFP and Free-form format - they voted to stick with TCFP and not change back to the original format. I don't understand this complaint.......your proposed Statement #9 was passed and is in the list of generally accepted Climate Change Statements, even though I posted Objection Reasons. It was handled in exactly the way all Statements here (And all Statements there) have been handled......where's the beef??

Sid 4 - "and created a new ruler on wildfires that they are too controversial for your taste."

Response

My Secretarial Ruling on a matter of substance (Not just procedure) was based on the goal of getting Statements "generally accepted". For days, the posts argued wildfires in Canada and USA were being started by arsonists who were pro-Great Reset, left wing, anti-fada, etc. The other side was marshalling statements and studies that concluded the main two sources of wildfires were natural (Lighting) and Human Carelessness (Campfires, lit cigarettes, etc.). Clearly no Statement on the source of wildfires was going to be generally accepted.....it is still a roaring debate.

So my ruling was pre-emptive - l knew that some member would put forward a partisan Statement on the source of wildfires, just to keep the chaos going. I did not want our group's time wasted by such blatant political motivations. So I head that off at the pass.........a very live topic of conversation was of the type that there was going to be no agreement - so take it off the table. Yes, I proposed the Ruling. But, as in all cases, I allowed one week for a Challenge of the Ruling.........not one CT'er came forward to Challenge the ruling. So it is passed by the "GROUP"!

Bob A (As Group Secretary - defending against allegations of breach of authority by the Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

The Evolution of Democratic Marxist Theory

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 2

Original – 20/4/15 (Revision – see below)

Note: cyclically re-posted for the benefit of new DMGI members, DM-G viewers and DMGF members/viewers.




Fundamentalism

There is a tendency in man towards “fundamentalism”. This is because this life approach makes things very simple.

We take the thought of great thinkers, such as Karl Marx, and we determine that they have given the complete and last word on some system of thought. We spend hours labouring over and parsing each word to better understand “their” thinking........and it is true that many great writers choose their words carefully, and the words may exude multiple layers of meaning. So there is something very valuable in doing this.

But it should not end here! We live in a changing, evolving world – systems are not writ in stone; they too must adapt and evolve with the changing context.

The Power of the Status Quo

But what happens when a successor thinker comes along and pushes the envelope of the great thinker......or worse, challenges one of his/her basic tenets??

What happened to the Jewish prophet, Jesus of Nazareth? A traditional Jew, ordinary (Not a rabbi), suggests that the Old Testament God, Yahweh, is being mis-described; Yahweh is a God of Love, not of Fire and Brimstone!!??

The Establishment moved quickly to shore up the fundamentalist position of the status quo. Jesus was ridiculed, scorned, his credentials attacked (He is just a simple carpenter – his teachings are garbage), his “Misunderstandings” were belittled and undermined, with a final referral to civil authority (The Roman Governor, Pilate) to have him put to death.

Or.....Martin Luther – for his “misinterpretations”, he was forced to schism from the Catholic Church; he is not allowed to preach his thoughts from a Catholic Church pulpit! And the establishment labelled his new religion NOT in the direct line from Jesus!

After this we have many Protestants defying the fundamental theologies of Luther, leading to the plethora of current “Protestant Christian” religions.

Is this kind of change proposal a malignancy? Or has a caterpillar become a butterfly – metamorphosis? Aristotle, the great Greek Philosopher, would likely refer to this as a change in “substance”, not “accident”. It is like the time had finally come for an evolutionary leap! It is a desperately bad thing, when it is time, and fundamentalists shut the change down.

So what do we say about the deep thinking of Karl Marx (And Frederick Engels)?

Democratic Marxism – Pushing the Envelope?

Are we allowed to challenge that Marx's “withering away of the State” was an unrealistic, anarchistic, and Utopian view? That this concept has no connection to future realities?

We can take this idea, though, and revise it to refer to the withering away of big top-down government, on the implementation of a Democratic Marxist Government.

Do we dare call ourselves Marxist and suggest that all political power should rest in the Local Political Unit (LPU) so that it can care for itself to the maximum extent it can? And that the LPU will itself decide if and when it needs to cede some power to a higher coalition level of bureaucracy to achieve a desired result for a coalition group of LPU's (And this may be time-limited)?

In all this, we claim to remain true to the core principle of Marx, that labour must dominate capital, and be accurately valued, and that there must be worker control.

Conclusion

Democratic Marxism is NOT a “schism” from Marxism (Old-style USSR Communism was the “schism” and warping of the original position)! DM is a direct successor of the original life line drawn by Karl Marx.

So.....can we legitimately use Karl Marx' name in our “Democratic Marxism”? A resounding: YES!!

Democratic Marxist Global Institute

Author: Bob Armstrong, Interim Coordinator, DM Vetting Committee Interim Chair.

Recent Revision: Bob Armstrong - 20/10/17

Recent Postings – DMGF - 22/11/8; 23/9/6

- Fb/Bob – 23/9/15

Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute - 2020

[Sid Belzberg]

Hi Sid: (Post # 345 - 23/9/10

Sid 1: "I assumed that since you started the thread you were looking for a way to informally come up with statements we all agree with."

Response

I agree. And the whole early life of this thread was in the free-form format you promote.


Sid 2: "Then you perverted it into this pseudo deomcracy.."

Response

Your allegation that I perverted the format into The Conversation Format Protocol (TCFP) is totally false.

Part way into this thread, I saw the potential for these CT'ers who were making good, intelligent, sourced comments. They could produce good educational material.

So I very democratically (NOT pseudo-democratically) directly asked the group is they wished to go in this new direction, with more formality, and me as Group Secretary (This did come along a bit later maybe). Not one CT'er raised any objection to my proposed change in our discussion trial.

In this TCFP, decisions are made democratically, by the method of "objection" (Following Quebec's Parliamentary rules).

I have been proven right. This CT'er Group has produced good Educational Material:


HS-G - 10 Statements
Libertarianism - 8 Statements
Democratic Marxism - 3 Statements

(A few still in process).

Sid 3. - "Everything is wrong with it starting with the fact that rarely do more than three or four CTers participate. You abuse your own rules as exemplified by the fact that you omitted two proposed statements statement 9."

Response

In any democratic group, deciding by majority vote (We do it by the "objection" method), few speak up, but all have one vote.
I have never abused the TCFP rules. You complain about Statement # 9 - Statement # 9 (HS-G) is already passed:

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.

I believe you are meaning to reference Statement # 9 for the CT Negative Climate Change Thread - that group actually voted between TCFP and Free-form format - they voted to stick with TCFP and not change back to the original format. I don't understand this complaint.......your proposed Statement #9 was passed and is in the list of generally accepted Climate Change Statements, even though I posted Objection Reasons. It was handled in exactly the way all Statements here (And all Statements there) have been handled......where's the beef??

Sid 4 - "and created a new ruler on wildfires that they are too controversial for your taste."

Response

{Quote= Bob Armstrong] My Secretarial Ruling on a matter of substance (Not just procedure) was based on the goal of getting Statements "generally accepted". For days, the posts argued wildfires in Canada and USA were being started by arsonists who were pro-Great Reset, left wing, anti-fada, etc. The other side was marshalling statements and studies that concluded the main two sources of wildfires were natural (Lighting) and Human Carelessness (Campfires, lit cigarettes, etc.). Clearly no Statement on the source of wildfires was going to be generally accepted.....it is still a roaring debate.

So my ruling was pre-emptive - l knew that some member would put forward a partisan Statement on the source of wildfires, just to keep the chaos going. I did not want our group's time wasted by such blatant political motivations. So I head that off at the pass.........a very live topic of conversation was of the type that there was going to be no agreement - so take it off the table. Yes, I proposed the Ruling. But, as in all cases, I allowed one week for a Challenge of the Ruling.........not one CT'er came forward to Challenge the ruling. So it is passed by the "GROUP"!

Bob A (As Group Secretary - defending against allegations of breach of authority by the Secretary)

I believe you are meaning to reference Statement # 9 for the CT Negative Climate Change Thread - that group actually voted between TCFP and Free-form format - they voted to stick with TCFP and not change back to the original format. I don't understand this complaint.......your proposed Statement #9 was passed and is in the list of generally accepted Climate Change Statements, even though I posted Objection Reasons. It was handled in exactly the way all Statements here (And all Statements there) have been handled......where's the beef??

The fact is you originally wanted statement 9 deleted under the same logic of the wildfire. Only when I called you out on this and showed the only "controversy" was between you and I as is the case with the wildfires did you back off. You are nothing but a censorious fascist masquerading under the title "Democratic Marxist".and self appointed title "secretary".

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Sid:

1. RE negative climate change Statement # 9:

You are absolutely correct in part........As Group Secretary I made a mistake in setting out, initially, the processing of your Statement # 9. Yes, you intelligently questioned by decision. I went away and thought about it, and decided you were right.........I had erred.....I was setting out a process that was different than that the group normally used. So I changed the processing as you had requested. I do admit, that unlike the Pope, I am not infallible.

Do I get no credit at all for being willing to admit here, publicly, that I made a MISTAKE? And that I then CORRECTED IT?

AND, as a result, your Statement # 9, which I think is false, and which I challenged, PASSED and is now on the list of this CT'er groups negative climate change Statements!

Where's the beef???

2. Re Group Secretary

Sid: " You are nothing but a ...... self appointed title "secretary"."


Response

a. Referring to the CT'er Negative Climate Change Thread:

Discussion Protocol (Post # 1736 – 23/9/3)

[Decision]

This CT'er group will continue to use the "Generally Accepted" (The Conversation Format Protocol) Protocol . It has rejected the “Free-Form” discussion protocol.

So in that thread, I was appointed by majority vote (NOT self-appointed).

b. Referring to this CT'er Human Self-Government Thread

In this thread, when the group adopted that it wanted to make generally accepted Statements, and would use my "The Conversation Format Protocol", I took on the Title of "Group Secretary". I may not have been clear as to where that came from. It is part of The Conversation Format Protocol. As everyone has seen, this format requires a lot of monitoring due to deadlines, etc. So it is necessary to have a Group Secretary to post progressively when decisions by the group have been made, to update the Statements Lists as they evolve and new Statements are added, etc. Who thinks the group could have ended up with 10 Statements on Human Self-Government, 8 on Libertarianism and 3 on Democratic Marxism, without someone keeping track of all this?

So I am NOT Self-Appointed - There was a group decision to go ahead in this new direction.

But it is true that I "volunteered" to be the Group Secretary because I knew the system, and I didn't think anyone else wanted to do it for this group. There was no vote accepting me.

3. Secretary Replacement Nominations



So the position of Group Secretary is now open for one week.

Any member of the group can come forward to volunteer to replace me. Should someone come forward, there will be an election.......I am going to let my name stand to continue the volunteer job, if the group wants me to continue. If not, it is a lot less work to just become a member!

There can be no nomination of someone else without them posting their consent to being nominated, at the same time as the posting of the nomination.

Nomination Deadline: Sunday, Sept. 24 @ 11:59 PM EDT


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)

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 # 10 (Proposed)

(Proposed by 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

After one week, there has been no "Revision" and/or "Opposition" Challenge.

Decision

The Statement # 10 is generally accepted and joins the list of generally accepted HS-G Statements.

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



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

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

Supporting Reasons

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 323 - 23/9/8

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".

Supplementary Support 1 - Bob Armstrong - Post # 323– 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".

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]

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 # 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

After one week there has been no Challenge this DM Statement.

Decision

Statement # 3 is generally accepted, and joins the list of Democratic Marxist Statements.

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.

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]

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)

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 # 4 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)

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

Statement # 5 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)

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).

Statement # 6 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)

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).

Statement # 7 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)

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

Statement # 8 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)

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.

Statement # 9 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)

“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 # 10 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)

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 # 11 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)

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.

Processing

There shall be one week for a "Revision Challenge" and/or an "Objection Challenge"; deadline: Sunday, Sept. 24 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

[Secretarial Note:

1. These Statements were passed by this CT'er group as part of our Human Self-Government list at a time when Supporting Reasons were not necessary to propose a Statement. Thus there still are none.
2. These Statements have been adopted not only by this HS-G group, but also by a Facebook Democratic Marxist discussion group.....they were brought there, from here, and were passed!
3. Given these 8 Statements have now been adopted in two separate groups, it seems most efficient to deal with the 8 Statements as a group. If you Challenge, please be clear with Statement you are Challenging, with Challenge Reasons.]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Sid Belzberg]

Hi Sid:

1. RE negative climate change Statement # 9:

You are absolutely correct in part........As Group Secretary I made a mistake in setting out, initially, the processing of your Statement # 9. Yes, you intelligently questioned by decision. I went away and thought about it, and decided you were right.........I had erred.....I was setting out a process that was different than that the group normally used. So I changed the processing as you had requested. I do admit, that unlike the Pope, I am not infallible.

Do I get no credit at all for being willing to admit here, publicly, that I made a MISTAKE? And that I then CORRECTED IT?

AND, as a result, your Statement # 9, which I think is false, and which I challenged, PASSED and is now on the list of this CT'er groups negative climate change Statements!

Where's the beef???

2. Re Group Secretary

Sid: " You are nothing but a ...... self appointed title "secretary"."


Response

a. Referring to the CT'er Negative Climate Change Thread:

Discussion Protocol (Post # 1736 – 23/9/3)

[Decision]

This CT'er group will continue to use the "Generally Accepted" (The Conversation Format Protocol) Protocol . It has rejected the “Free-Form” discussion protocol.

So in that thread, I was appointed by majority vote (NOT self-appointed).

b. Referring to this CT'er Human Self-Government Thread

In this thread, when the group adopted that it wanted to make generally accepted Statements, and would use my "The Conversation Format Protocol", I took on the Title of "Group Secretary". I may not have been clear as to where that came from. It is part of The Conversation Format Protocol. As everyone has seen, this format requires a lot of monitoring due to deadlines, etc. So it is necessary to have a Group Secretary to post progressively when decisions by the group have been made, to update the Statements Lists as they evolve and new Statements are added, etc. Who thinks the group could have ended up with 10 Statements on Human Self-Government, 8 on Libertarianism and 3 on Democratic Marxism, without someone keeping track of all this?

So I am NOT Self-Appointed - There was a group decision to go ahead in this new direction.

But it is true that I "volunteered" to be the Group Secretary because I knew the system, and I didn't think anyone else wanted to do it for this group. There was no vote accepting me.

3. Secretary Replacement Nominations



So the position of Group Secretary is now open for one week.

Any member of the group can come forward to volunteer to replace me. Should someone come forward, there will be an election.......I am going to let my name stand to continue the volunteer job, if the group wants me to continue. If not, it is a lot less work to just become a member!

There can be no nomination of someone else without them posting their consent to being nominated, at the same time as the posting of the nomination.

Nomination Deadline: Sunday, Sept. 24 @ 11:59 PM EDT


Bob A (As Group Secretary)

your Statement # 9, which I think is false, and which I challenged

The basis of your challenge was to show a climate fear porn website that makes absurd claims about Methane. The radiative transfer
statistics about Methane are well known and the peer reviewed paper I offered has yet to be retracted because of any errors.

You want to proclaim something false, please show me scientific literature that refutes the data or the analysis by physicist Dr. Happer

I will save you the suspense you won't be able to. The only thing you have to offer is propaganda so typical of Marxists.

You errored with Methane, so since the "controversy on wildfires and their cause is only between you and I" as was Methane are you now willing
to accept a statement about this since the "error" is no different than Methane? I certainly saw nothing out of you about this hence I am skeptical
that it was just an "error" More like your narrative ids getting crushed and that was not your goal

[Fred Harvey]

Nature of this CT'er Group

Fred Harvey - Post # 335 - 23/9/10

"I suspect that most of the other silent members only tune in here for a chuckle from time to time."



Question: For those of the 30 CT'ers who come here "daily":

Would those who come here "only for entertainment", not for learning (And some entertainment), would you please post your Supporting Reasons for your belief that Fred's Statement is "fact"?

Thanks.

Bob A (As Group Secretary - interested in the true nature and intentions of the group in this thread)

Hey, under your damn fool "rules", if you get no responses to your post, does that mean my suspicion is "fact"?

You seem to have lost the support of two of your disciples, which leaves you with only PP. Not a good position to be in....in a normal world, it would be time for an intervention!