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

[Frank Dixon]

World peace is a wonderful idea, in fact I can't imagine a better one!!! I sincerely hope to live long enough to actually see it. I doubt I will.

From a practical standpoint, it runs into Russia, the perfect counterexample.

Starting over 1,000 years ago, from the small city-state of Muscovy (Moscow), the Russians have done little else but successfully conquer other peoples and countries. It is what they do, what they are good at. Along the way, they fought off invasion challenges from King Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler. All three would-be conquerors ran into the formidable 'General Winter', and were defeated by counterattack.

In 1991, as the USSR was breaking up, Russia controlled and ruled more than 10 per cent of the world's land mass, more than 8,000,000 square miles. That didn't even include the eastern European countries which were Russian-controlled, such as the former East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Romania.

The British Empire was at one stage larger than that, but Britain has since granted independent rule to its former colonies, such as Canada, Australia, and British India (those three themselves made up over 8,000,000 square miles).

Russia, smaller now but still the world's largest nation by area, at over 6,000,000 square miles, has now said 'farewell' to detente, and has resumed its warlike ways.

World peace has once more met its match -- Russia -- now closely allied with powerful China.

[Tom O'Donnell]

The central premise is so offensive to me I am feeling gobsmacked. The author is arguing that we need to work toward equality of outcomes and not equality of opportunity. He argues that smart people have an advantage and we should work to eradicate this advantage. The dangers of such an approach are apparent to most smart people. Colour me a dinosaur but I want my surgeon or doctor to be smart. I want my computer technician to be smart.

I sometimes buy books like this to get insight into the mind of these activists but this just fills me with a deep foreboding of harder times ahead as these policies work their way into the mainstream. The world of Charlton Heston's version of Soylent Green can not be far behind.

These people read Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" but didn't understand that it was dystopian satire.

[Sid Belzberg]

World peace is a wonderful idea, in fact I can't imagine a better one!!! I sincerely hope to live long enough to actually see it. I doubt I will.

From a practical standpoint, it runs into Russia, the perfect counterexample.

Starting over 1,000 years ago, from the small city-state of Muscovy (Moscow), the Russians have done little else but successfully conquer other peoples and countries. It is what they do, what they are good at. Along the way, they fought off invasion challenges from King Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler. All three would-be conquerors ran into the formidable 'General Winter', and were defeated by counterattack.

In 1991, as the USSR was breaking up, Russia controlled and ruled more than 10 per cent of the world's land mass, more than 8,000,000 square miles. That didn't even include the eastern European countries which were Russian-controlled, such as the former East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Romania.

The British Empire was at one stage larger than that, but Britain has since granted independent rule to its former colonies, such as Canada, Australia, and British India (those three themselves made up over 8,000,000 square miles).

Russia, smaller now but still the world's largest nation by area, at over 6,000,000 square miles, has now said 'farewell' to detente, and has resumed its warlike ways.

World peace has once more met its match -- Russia -- now closely allied with powerful China.

Good read below, the WEF has nothing to do with "World peace" and everything to do with tyranny and genocide. Of course, what can you expect from the likes of WEF leader Klauss Schwab and it's deputy director Chrystia Freeland all descendants of high-ranking Nazis?

https://www.2ndsmartestguyintheworld...origins-of-the

[Vlad Drkulec]

In 1991, as the USSR was breaking up, Russia controlled and ruled more than 10 per cent of the world's land mass, more than 8,000,000 square miles. That didn't even include the eastern European countries which were Russian-controlled, such as the former East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Romania.

Russia never controlled Yugoslavia. You are mistaken on that idea.

[Fred Henderson]

"What do CT'ers think about globalization - good? not good?"

Definition: Globalization is the word used to describe the growing interdependence of the world's economies, cultures, and populations, brought about by cross-border trade in goods and services, technology, and flows of investment, people, and information.

IN theory, globalization should be good. What about you Bob? Is globalization good or bad? I couldn't figure out where you stood from reading your posts, which contained lots of conjecture, but few if any substantive facts.

":And do you believe that it is part of a planned incremental process by unknown individuals to eventually establish a dictatorship over the whole globe?"

unknown individuals establishing a dictatorship over the whole globe? You can't be serious. LOL.

[Dilip Panjwani]

If globalization is associated with de-militarization, removal of 'trade barriers & restriction of movement of individuals' and with a libertarian way of life for individuals, it would be a true panacea!

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Fred (Post # 35):

Yup.......serious........NASA, we have a situation.............

Truth can be stranger than fiction.

Also, facts were given...I did research on a number of organizations that seem to be moving in that direction.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Bob Armstrong]

The Democratic Marxist Alternative to NWO: "A Planetary Collection of Villages" (Local Political Units - LPU's)

The push-back against NWO is that centralized power leads to "abuse of power", and to great risk to the planet due to so many countries amassing huge militaries and arms.

In another thread in the English Chess Forum, I set out the basics of this "Collection of Villages" structure; I thought it fit nicely here as well; here it is:

The electors within a Local Political Unit (LPU) will decide what, if any, services they wish to have provided by their local government. For example, an LPU might decide to have a Disability Support Program, for those co-residents disabled such that they cannot work. The electors might feel that these fellow-residents should not be existing solely on the possible charity of their fellow residents, and its uncertainty. Or the residents may want local garbage pick-up, as they have had.

Such a system means that the electors would have to implement some type of self-taxation at a rate that meets their needs.

Also, two contiguous LPU's might decide that it is cheaper for each to have a common garbage pick-up in both LPU's - both will split the cost. No "Higher Level" body likely needs to be created to implement this "Common Contract". But if it is needed, it can be time limited with the length of the pick-up contract, and in future, at the end of the period, it will have to be reviewed.

All LPU's could decide this by themselves, and are not bound by what other LPU's may be doing.

This is the Democratic Marxist twist on it, implementing the principle that the majority should pay for services needed by residents who are incapable of self-supplying their own needs. Also, sometimes, government centralized planning, by the LPU, may be helpful in terms of both cost and efficiency. An example of this might be "Affordable Housing".

Any comments would be welcome.

Bob A (T-S/P)

[Sid Belzberg]

The Democratic Marxist Alternative to NWO: "A Planetary Collection of Villages" (Local Political Units - LPU's)

The push-back against NWO is that centralized power leads to "abuse of power", and to great risk to the planet due to so many countries amassing huge militaries and arms.

In another thread in the English Chess Forum, I set out the basics of this "Collection of Villages" structure; I thought it fit nicely here as well; here it is:

The electors within a Local Political Unit (LPU) will decide what, if any, services they wish to have provided by their local government. For example, an LPU might decide to have a Disability Support Program, for those co-residents disabled such that they cannot work. The electors might feel that these fellow-residents should not be existing solely on the possible charity of their fellow residents, and its uncertainty. Or the residents may want local garbage pick-up, as they have had.

Such a system means that the electors would have to implement some type of self-taxation at a rate that meets their needs.

Also, two contiguous LPU's might decide that it is cheaper for each to have a common garbage pick-up in both LPU's - both will split the cost. No "Higher Level" body likely needs to be created to implement this "Common Contract". But if it is needed, it can be time limited with the length of the pick-up contract, and in future, at the end of the period, it will have to be reviewed.

All LPU's could decide this by themselves, and are not bound by what other LPU's may be doing.

This is the Democratic Marxist twist on it, implementing the principle that the majority should pay for services needed by residents who are incapable of self-supplying their own needs. Also, sometimes, government centralized planning, by the LPU, may be helpful in terms of both cost and efficiency. An example of this might be "Affordable Housing".

Any comments would be welcome.

Bob A (T-S/P)

in Israel they had a system of Kibbutz that is sort of like what you are talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

[Dilip Panjwani]

The Democratic Marxist Alternative to NWO: "A Planetary Collection of Villages" (Local Political Units - LPU's)

The push-back against NWO is that centralized power leads to "abuse of power", and to great risk to the planet due to so many countries amassing huge militaries and arms.

In another thread in the English Chess Forum, I set out the basics of this "Collection of Villages" structure; I thought it fit nicely here as well; here it is:

The electors within a Local Political Unit (LPU) will decide what, if any, services they wish to have provided by their local government. For example, an LPU might decide to have a Disability Support Program, for those co-residents disabled such that they cannot work. The electors might feel that these fellow-residents should not be existing solely on the possible charity of their fellow residents, and its uncertainty. Or the residents may want local garbage pick-up, as they have had.

Such a system means that the electors would have to implement some type of self-taxation at a rate that meets their needs.

Also, two contiguous LPU's might decide that it is cheaper for each to have a common garbage pick-up in both LPU's - both will split the cost. No "Higher Level" body likely needs to be created to implement this "Common Contract". But if it is needed, it can be time limited with the length of the pick-up contract, and in future, at the end of the period, it will have to be reviewed.

All LPU's could decide this by themselves, and are not bound by what other LPU's may be doing.

This is the Democratic Marxist twist on it, implementing the principle that the majority should pay for services needed by residents who are incapable of self-supplying their own needs. Also, sometimes, government centralized planning, by the LPU, may be helpful in terms of both cost and efficiency. An example of this might be "Affordable Housing".

Any comments would be welcome.

Bob A (T-S/P)

Bob,
Democratic Marxism looks all good and glamorous, until you add 'human nature' to the equation, when it all falls apart, as history has shown us time and time again...
D

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

The only historical example I've found for Democratic Marxism is Chile under President Salvador Allende from 1971-3. He did not use the DM term, but his was a freely elected government. Allende was the Leader of Chile's Socialist Party and had run in many elections, prior to getting elected. To get a majority, he quite happily formed a Unity Government, bringing in the traditional USSR-style Chilean Communist Party.

Cooperatives were promoted; unions were strong and influential; unfortunately the possibilities of this type of government were cut short with the USA influence on General Pinochet to implement a coup against Allende. Allende was surrounded in the Presidential Palace. He know he would be tortured, so he committed suicide before the soldiers got to him.

USSR-style Communist Governments (China; North Korea; Vietnam; Cuba) are a Marxian heresy. They depart from Marx' thinking on Democracy and Workers' Rights.

Democratic Marxism remains faithful to these two principles.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Sid Belzberg]

Hi Dilip:

The only historical example I've found for Democratic Marxism is Chile under President Salvador Allende from 1971-3. He did not use the DM term, but his was a freely elected government. Allende was the Leader of Chile's Socialist Party and had run in many elections, prior to getting elected. To get a majority, he quite happily formed a Unity Government, bringing in the traditional USSR-style Chilean Communist Party.

Cooperatives were promoted; unions were strong and influential; unfortunately the possibilities of this type of government were cut short with the USA influence on General Pinochet to implement a coup against Allende. Allende was surrounded in the Presidential Palace. He know he would be tortured, so he committed suicide before the soldiers got to him.

USSR-style Communist Governments (China; North Korea; Vietnam; Cuba) are a Marxian heresy. They depart from Marx' thinking on Democracy and Workers' Rights.

Democratic Marxism remains faithful to these two principles.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

It is true that Allende's first year showed excellent results "During its first year in office, the Allende Government achieved economic growth, reductions in inflation and unemployment, a redistribution of income, and an increase in consumption The government also significantly increased salaries and wages, reduced taxes, and introduced free distribution of some items of prime necessity^[ Groups which had previously been excluded from the state labor insurance scheme (mainly the self-employed and small businessmen) were included for the first time, while pensions were increased for widows, invalids, orphans, and the elderly. The National Milk Plan affected 50% of Chilean children in 1970, providing 3,470,000 with half a litre of milk daily, free of charge"

However, as with every regime I have read about initially, it starts off great. Still, the repercussions of nationalizing foreign-owned businesses and alienation from the international community inevitably have grave consequences that far outweigh the initial benefits. "Allende's regime expropriated the U.S.-owned copper companies in Chile without compensation, an act which set him seriously at odds with the U.S. government and weakened foreign investors’ confidence in his government. His government also took steps to purchase several important privately owned mining and manufacturing sectors and to take over large agricultural estates for use by peasant cooperatives. In an attempt to redistribute incomes, he authorized large wage increases and froze prices. Allende also printed large amounts of unsupported currency to erase the fiscal deficit created by the government’s purchase of basic industries. By 1972 Chile was suffering from stagnant production, decreased exports and private-sector investment, exhausted financial reserves, widespread strikes, rising inflation, food shortages, and domestic unrest. International lines of credit from the United States and western Europe had completely dried up."
As with all these attempts, i.e., Venezuela's Chavez, by the second year, the result is an economic disaster.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

The only historical example I've found for Democratic Marxism is Chile under President Salvador Allende from 1971-3. He did not use the DM term, but his was a freely elected government. Allende was the Leader of Chile's Socialist Party and had run in many elections, prior to getting elected. To get a majority, he quite happily formed a Unity Government, bringing in the traditional USSR-style Chilean Communist Party.

Cooperatives were promoted; unions were strong and influential; unfortunately the possibilities of this type of government were cut short with the USA influence on General Pinochet to implement a coup against Allende. Allende was surrounded in the Presidential Palace. He know he would be tortured, so he committed suicide before the soldiers got to him.

USSR-style Communist Governments (China; North Korea; Vietnam; Cuba) are a Marxian heresy. They depart from Marx' thinking on Democracy and Workers' Rights.

Democratic Marxism remains faithful to these two principles.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

Hi Bob,
While concentration of wealth in the hands of very few because of subtly unjust policies of capitalism is bad, legal & democratic looting of the hard-working, wealth-generating rich by grossly unjust policies in democratic Marxism is worse. In Allende's reign, the rate of inflation rose to 150%, and production did not keep up with consumption, leading to empty shelves in the stores. As Ayn Rand indicated in her writings, Marxism leads to the hard-working intelligentsia going 'out of business', leading to a collapse of the economy. Human nature demands rewards commensurate with what one can offer to the society in terms of generation of wealth, as is possible in Libertarianism. In Marxism, what happens is that the government bakes a common pie for all to share equally from, irrespective of their personal ability to generate wealth, and so it is only 'human' for people to work the least they can get away with, and what should ideally be everybody's business to bake a bigger pie degenerates into nobody's business to do that, because the administration is done by those who are politically savvy and smooth talkers, rather than those who can genuinely work smartly on their own, without interference from others. You seem to believe that adding 'democratic' before 'Marxism' makes it legitimate, but Marxism is just as dangerous when the majority can dictate to the minority to do only what they want them to do... Libertarianism is the answer, where everyone minds their own business, but is free to cooperate and work with others as is necessary and possible...
Dilip

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

Thank you for the detailed and insightful Libertarian analysis of the Allende regime. Allende served from November 3, 1970 until his death on September 11, 1973. Wikipedia wrongly states that " He was the first Marxist to be elected president in a liberal democracy in Latin America." This is incorrect technically........He was always the leader of the Socialist Party of Chile. The error has crept in because he was a farther left Socialist personally, and because the policies of his Popular Unity government would now be seen "Democratic Marxist".

As to 72-3 economic deterioration cited by you, Wikipedia notes: Although the acceleration of inflation in 1972 and 1973 eroded part of the initial increase in wages, they still rose (on average) in real terms during the 1971–73 period.^[56]

One has to understand the internal and international pressures that Allende faced trying to steer the nation towards more equality, and the true causes of the later deterioration of the economy:

Wikipedia:

Salvador Allende took office in a difficult international context. Chile was aligned with the United States in 1970. Elsewhere in Latin America, Brazil, Argentina and Bolivia were ruled by conservative military dictatorships (soon to be joined by Uruguay). Colombia and Venezuela also had conservative, but democratically elected, governments. Only Cuba, Peru and Mexico viewed the Chilean socialist experiment with sympathy. Under Allende's presidency, Chile joined the Non-Aligned Movement, a position that was then almost unique in Latin America.^[87]

Despite winning the presidential election, the legislative and judicial powers were still held by the opposition, making it difficult for the government to legislate.

As president, Allende sought to nationalize major industries, expand education and improve the living standards of the working class. He clashed with the right-wing parties that controlled Congress and with the judiciary.

The United States, under the Nixon administration, prevented the renegotiation of national debt and placed an embargo on goods from nationalized companies. In response to these efforts, Allende expanded the money supply, and inflation skyrocketed. Food shortages worsened as the embargo limited imports and hoarding in the black market limited access to food.When Chile nationalized its copper industry, the United States government cut off support and increased its support to opposition.

Forced to seek alternative sources of trade and finance, Chile gained commitments from the Soviet Union to invest some $400 million in Chile in the next six years.^{[citation needed]} Allende's government was disappointed that it received far less economic assistance from the USSR than it hoped for. Trade between the two countries did not significantly increase and the credits were mainly linked to the purchase of Soviet equipment. Moreover, credits from the Soviet Union were much less than those provided to the People's Republic of China and countries of Eastern Europe. When Allende visited the USSR in late 1972 in search of more aid and additional lines of credit after 3 years, he was turned down.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

Thank you for the detailed and insightful Libertarian analysis of the Allende regime. Allende served from November 3, 1970 until his death on September 11, 1973. Wikipedia wrongly states that " He was the first Marxist to be elected president in a liberal democracy in Latin America." This is incorrect technically........He was always the leader of the Socialist Party of Chile. The error has crept in because he was a farther left Socialist personally, and because the policies of his Popular Unity government would now be seen "Democratic Marxist".

As to 72-3 economic deterioration cited by you, Wikipedia notes: Although the acceleration of inflation in 1972 and 1973 eroded part of the initial increase in wages, they still rose (on average) in real terms during the 1971–73 period.^[56]

One has to understand the internal and international pressures that Allende faced trying to steer the nation towards more equality, and the true causes of the later deterioration of the economy:

Wikipedia:

Salvador Allende took office in a difficult international context. Chile was aligned with the United States in 1970. Elsewhere in Latin America, Brazil, Argentina and Bolivia were ruled by conservative military dictatorships (soon to be joined by Uruguay). Colombia and Venezuela also had conservative, but democratically elected, governments. Only Cuba, Peru and Mexico viewed the Chilean socialist experiment with sympathy. Under Allende's presidency, Chile joined the Non-Aligned Movement, a position that was then almost unique in Latin America.^[87]

Despite winning the presidential election, the legislative and judicial powers were still held by the opposition, making it difficult for the government to legislate.

As president, Allende sought to nationalize major industries, expand education and improve the living standards of the working class. He clashed with the right-wing parties that controlled Congress and with the judiciary.

The United States, under the Nixon administration, prevented the renegotiation of national debt and placed an embargo on goods from nationalized companies. In response to these efforts, Allende expanded the money supply, and inflation skyrocketed. Food shortages worsened as the embargo limited imports and hoarding in the black market limited access to food.When Chile nationalized its copper industry, the United States government cut off support and increased its support to opposition.

Forced to seek alternative sources of trade and finance, Chile gained commitments from the Soviet Union to invest some $400 million in Chile in the next six years.^{[citation needed]} Allende's government was disappointed that it received far less economic assistance from the USSR than it hoped for. Trade between the two countries did not significantly increase and the credits were mainly linked to the purchase of Soviet equipment. Moreover, credits from the Soviet Union were much less than those provided to the People's Republic of China and countries of Eastern Europe. When Allende visited the USSR in late 1972 in search of more aid and additional lines of credit after 3 years, he was turned down.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

Hi Bob,
Higher wages is a good thing, unless you combine it with nationalization / unionization. In Allende's regime, nationalization resulted in loss of production and money losing companies, while unionization led to rampant strikes, and hence even Fidel Castro and USSR criticized what was happening in Chile. So the downfall of Allende was mainly due to empty shelves in stores and hardly any inflation adjusted increase in wages.
The right way to reduce unjust inequality is to give access to capital to the poor, so that they can develop themselves, and compete, and reducing the power (power=corruption) of the governments, so that the stinking rich/privileged cannot unjustly continue to prevent others from competing by using bribes to raise non-inclusivity barriers for the poor in general and certain communities in particular... (we all know of even a young Joe Biden supporting legislation to reduce access to schools for young girls like Kamala Harris)…
Capitalism rewards 'being rich', Marxism rewards the political savviness to grab a bigger piece of a very limited common pie, while Libertarianism, like Chess, rewards smart, hard work. Why would you choose anything but Libertarianism, Bob A.?
D