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

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip, to wrap up our discussion on Scandinavian countries:

Yes, they have higher taxation.

Capitalism can work, but you can not give "freedom" to employers to exploit workers or the environment.

Their taxes are on everyone with hardly any 'progressive' taxation.
And while I fully agree with you that Capitalism leads to exploitation of workers, Libertarianism is the remedy which prevents that without taking away the freedom and the hard earned wealth of citizens...

[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)

Weekly Overview



A. Statistics


Week # 11 (23/9/25 – 10/1, 2023 [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.............(11 wks.)............Responses/Day....Resp./Day......... (11 wks.).

…47.........................38.......................37..........................5.....................3........................4

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's Stats are running ahead of the year to date. The stats are showing consistency going forward......we seem to have now a settled group of participants of almost 40 members (Unless some are coming more than once per day)

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. Who is going to be in control as humans battle to survive in an environment more and more hostile to their continued existence?

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: The Sustainable Earth Project: A Collection of Villages (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)

[Sid Belzberg]

but benevolent, one-world government

[Sid Belzberg]

Why a Global Government Is the Ultimate Goal of Billionaires

Under the guise of the 'green' agenda and 'zero-emission standards, they want to force you out of your home with this 100,000-euro price tag.


DR. JOSEPH MERCOLA


STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• The European Union’s “Energy Performance of Buildings Directive” — the legislative instrument that dictates the energy performance standards for buildings within the EU — will be used to achieve a massive wealth transfer scheme
• By 2030, the EU must meet a minimum 55% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050, they want every building — commercial, public and residential — in the EU to meet zero-emission standards. To achieve that, they will impose a slew of new renewal energy requirements on homeowners
• For example, heating systems that use fossil fuels are to be completely phased out of existence by 2035. Homeowners will be required to install new “green,” presumably electric, heating systems — and pay for it out of pocket. The cost for these new energy requirements are estimated to be around 100,000 euros for a residential house
• The goal is to force people out of their homes. If you cannot afford the required upgrades, you’ll be forced to sell your home. Asset management companies will then buy them and turn them into rentals
• September 20, 2023, the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) president approved a declaration on pandemic prevention, which assigns pandemic authority to the WHO, without a full assembly vote and over the objections of 11 member states. The objections should have prevented a consensus adoption the declaration, but the U.N. is skirting the rules by having the UNGA president, rather than the General Assembly, approve the declaration.

The Goal Really Is for You to Own Nothing


The goal, Bull-Hansen, explains, is to force people out of their homes. If you cannot afford the required upgrades, you’ll be forced to sell your home, and asset management companies like BlackRock and Vanguard will stand at the ready to snatch these properties up.

And that’s if you’ll be allowed to sell a house that isn’t up to standards; the government might just deem it unsellable and seize it, or you may have to pay a fine of some sort.

https://takecontrol.substack.com/p/g...f-billionaires

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Fred:

I like your Statement - Post # 420 - 23/9/29:

History teaches us that many societies have chosen to handle such tasks [Services to the Community] at the local, or municipal, level, and it works quite well. It's the bigger stuff, with bigger rewards to the political crooks where we get into trouble.

As Secretary, would you be willing to have me format and process it as a new Statement # 12?

Pargat Perrer has already supported it in a prior, somewhat longer post (Post # 410 - 23/9/28) - Supplementary Reason 1.

I (As Participant) now support it (Post # 436 - 23/10/6) - my Supplementary Reason 2: Small is Beautiful, and less dangerous.

If yes, advise if you wish to tweak it at all before I post is as a new Statement # 12.

Thanks.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Fred Harvey]

Hi Fred:

I like your Statement - Post # 420 - 23/9/29:

History teaches us that many societies have chosen to handle such tasks [Services to the Community] at the local, or municipal, level, and it works quite well. It's the bigger stuff, with bigger rewards to the political crooks where we get into trouble.

As Secretary, would you be willing to have me format and process it as a new Statement # 12?

Pargat Perrer has already supported it in a prior, somewhat longer post (Post # 410 - 23/9/28) - Supplementary Reason 1.

I (As Participant) now support it (Post # 436 - 23/10/6) - my Supplementary Reason 2: Small is Beautiful, and less dangerous.

If yes, advise if you wish to tweak it at all before I post is as a new Statement # 12.

Thanks.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

In no way shape or form am I willing to have you bugger around with my posts! You resolutely refuse to accept that only about a half dozen people with too much time on their hands, and little else going on in their lives, bother with your nonsense. For pities sake man, grow up! You are looking more and more like....well, never mind. Pathetic....how do you factor this in to your self-appointed scheme of things?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Fred:

Got it. Maybe some of the active CT'ers here may revise the possible Statement into their own words.........your concept is good.

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)

Weekly Overview



A. Statistics


Week # 12 (23/10/2 – 8, 2023 [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.............(12 wks.)............Responses/Day....Resp./Day......... (12 wks.).

…28.........................47.......................37..........................1.....................5........................4

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's Stats are running behind the prior week and the year to date. The reason.....only 1 response per day.....activity slowed almost to a stop.

But 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.

Who is going to be in control as humans battle to survive in an environment more and more hostile to their continued existence?

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: The Sustainable Earth Project: A Collection of Villages (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]

ChessTalk

Human Self-Government

(Problem: NWO [New World Order] – Label of the Left; GR [The Great Reset] - Label of the Right)

Statement # 12 (Proposed)

Currently, and in the past, most daily services for residents have been the jurisdiction of cities, towns, villages, townships, etc...What is found is that this tends to minimize abuse of authority and criminality.

Supportive Reason 1

This is the case because the residents know each other, know what is going on, and discuss it among themselves. They can intervene where something is going off the rails, because the power system is small and local. In representative government, in small format, the politicians are neighbours of the electors......the representatives cannot afford to make the residents' lives miserable, or so will their local life.

Support Reason 2 - Dilip Panjwani - Post # 426 - 23/9/29

The citizens and their circles need to do that themselves... history teaches us that whenever such tasks are managed by big government, misery ensues... in Bob A's vision, local governments which you allude to would be the local circles...

Processing

Their will be one week for Revision and/or Opposition Challenges; deadline: Wed., Oct. 18 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

[Note: I acknowledge that this concept was first discussed here between Fred Harvey ( Post # 420 - 23/9/29) and Dilip. Fred does not wish to participate any longer in this group producing Statements, as I understand it. So he did not wish to have his idea formalized as a Statement, with him as proposer. So I have put their concept into my own words.]

Bob A (As Participant)

[Bob Armstrong]

Differentiating Democratic Marxist and Capitalist Economies

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 5

(Original – 20/8/4)

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



Fundamental Difference Between the DM Economy & the Capitalist Economy

When profit is the goal, as in capitalism, the point is not to produce for the demand. The point is to create the demand by marketing, so as to be able to maximize production and thus lower costs. This adheres to the principle of volume efficiency – once you have invested the capital to produce one widget, the cost of infinite production of widgets is actually a very small amount more; and the more widgets produced, the cost per widget decreases. The next goal is, at the same time, to try to keep the selling price of a widget high – allegedly to cover the cost of a widget being produced and some profit. Thus the producer ends up making even more money for each additional widget made and sold. This is a deliriously wonderful outcome for capitalism; ever-increasing profit per widget – The Ponzi Scheme realized.

It does not matter that a widget is not needed at all; the issue is solely “marketing”: “Don't fall behind your neighbour in quality of life; you must have a widget too!”

In opposition to this, Democratic Marxism's economy is based on “sustainability” and “meeting actual needs first”. Only produce what is needed in the volume needed. And if planned obsolescence (As in capitalism) is eliminated, then when the demand is filled, production ratchets back, and goes into a new initial low-volume replacement mode. Workers then shift out of this employment to other jobs, if necessary, with re-training if necessary. The increased cost of replacement widgets must become subsidized by the general economy (We cannot totally do without widgets – so if one breaks down, it will have to be replaced).

The Consequence of the Sustainable Economy

The first major consequence is that employment has to drop; jobs are well below the potential pool of labourers available.

So there are created three classes: the paid employed; the unpaid employed (those on UBI who decide to labour at something beneficial to society for free); the non-contributing in terms of societal contribution (Living private little lives).

The employed will enjoy higher income than the non-employed.....the upper class will not wither away. So the sustainable economy requires a very steep progressive income and wealth tax to generate tax revenues for government for society to provide a Universal Basic Income Livable Benefit (Also, low employment will lead to shrunken tax revenue). The tax grid, however, must not be so steep that non-paid working is seen as more beneficial than working. Of course, there will be some status benefit, likely, in being a paid-worker. Also, for those capable of marrying their passion to their career, there will be a most attractive general quality of life (And likely substantial benefit to society for them being paid workers. There likely will have to be a consumption tax of some kind as well to generate enough government revenue.

The Non-Paid Working Class

The government will provide a Universal Basic Income Livable Benefit to all. The tax system will recoup the benefit, or much of it, from higher income citizens. Or, perhaps, receipt of the benefit may be optional.

The State-Supported Class will subdivide into two: the non-paid working class (will use their time, effort and money to provide free, contributions to society); those who simply wish to live a private, little, enjoyable life, and not work. It will be true that competition will be fierce for any paid-worker positions.......despite the naysayers who believe all will suddenly be satisfied with a life of drinking beer.

Monthly budgets will be lower due to the free products/services provided by the non-paid workers. There will be no charging for unpaid worker labour – all paid employment will have to be registered and government approved. This, of course, will lead to an underground economy, but this exists in any regulated system.

Quality of Life

Quality of life will be in each individual's hands......they will be able to determine their own destiny with many less obstacles than in current day capitalism (Even social democracy). They will determine the level of satisfaction with life they want (Within the bounds of all being taken care of – no more billionaires......those that want that will just fail to reach their self-interested goal). For those who desire a somewhat higher quality of life than the rest, they will have to decide whether to enter the competitive race for employment.

For the non-paid workers, life will be “livable” - a step way up from the quality of life of many, in both the under-developed, and developed, societies.

Democratic Marxist Global Institute

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

Recent Reviser: Bob Armstrong

Most Recent Revision - 20/10/17

Distribution: DMGF; DM-G; TRN/Bob; CT/HS-G

Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute – 2020

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Human Self-Government

(Problem: NWO [New World Order] – Label of the Left; GR [The Great Reset] - Label of the Right)

Statement # 12 (Proposed)

Currently, and in the past, most daily services for residents have been the jurisdiction of cities, towns, villages, townships, etc...What is found is that this tends to minimize abuse of authority and criminality.

Support Reason 1 - Bob Armstrong

This is the case because the residents know each other, know what is going on, and discuss it among themselves. They can intervene where something is going off the rails, because the power system is small and local. In representative government, in small format, the politicians are neighbours of the electors......the representatives cannot afford to make the residents' lives miserable, or so will their local life.

Support Reason 2 - Dilip Panjwani

The citizens and their circles need to do that themselves... history teaches us that whenever such tasks are managed by big government, misery ensues... in Bob A's vision, local governments which you allude to would be the local circles...

Processing

After one week, no CT'er has launched a Revision and/or Opposition Challenge.

Conclusion

Statement # 12 is generally accepted; it joins the list of Statements.

Bob A (As 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)



[Part I of 2 parts]

Statements Update

A. 12 Statements On Human Self-Government Generally

(All processing currently completed – 23/10/19)

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 Reason 1 - 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".

Supporting Reason 2 - 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".

Statement # 11

Some political systems inhibit the amount and extent of government corruption and exploitation by the "elite" (Whomever they may be in any particular system) than others. The systems that do best are "local & small" (Everyone knows what is going on) and have direct democracy (Not representative government).

Supporting Reason

If the planet were to dissolve nations, and become a planet of a "Collection of Villages", with "direct" voting on substantial issues, then corruption would be less, and the consequences would be less (Likely hard for a small village to amass an arsenal of nuclear weapons).

Statement # 12

Currently, and in the past, most daily services for residents have been the jurisdiction of cities, towns, villages, townships, etc...What is found is that this tends to minimize abuse of authority and criminality.

Supporting Reason 1 - Bob Armstrong

This is the case because the residents know each other, know what is going on, and discuss it among themselves. They can intervene where something is going off the rails, because the power system is small and local. In representative government, in small format, the politicians are neighbours of the electors......the representatives cannot afford to make the residents' lives miserable, or so will their local life.

Supporting Reason 2 - Dilip Panjwani

The citizens and their circles need to do that themselves... history teaches us that whenever such tasks are managed by big government, misery ensues... local governments which you allude to would be the local circles...

[See Part II below]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Human Self-Government (Continued)

[Part II; see Part I above]

B. Partisan Statements

a. Libertarianism

10 Statements - Last full update (All completed to the date) – Post # 354– 23/9/12

[Secretarial Note # 1 - re all Statements

Statements are generated, and adopted, or not, by a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Forum): https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...205-new-world- order-nwo-sometimes-called-the-great-reset.

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 Statement (Or more) may be wrong; it is the best this group could do; it may be that others may have to do corrections]

b. Democratic Marxism

11 Statements - Last full update (All completed to the date) – Post # 405 – 23/9/26

[Secretarial Note # 2: re Statements # 1 - # 11 on Democratic Marxism

These have been endorsed as accurate, not only by the group mentioned in Secretarial Note # 1, but also by a group of about 250 members of a Fb group, The Democratic Marxist Global Forum. They represent the partisan political spectrum, and the issue spectrum. It may be that one or more of these Statements is wrong; it is the best these groups could do; others may have to make any necessary corrections.
A Statement (Or more) may be wrong; it is the best this group could do; it may be that others may have to do corrections]

C. Group Secretary Rulings

Ruling # P1 (Procedural)

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

D. Group Decisions

Secretary Replacement Nominations

The position of Group Secretary was open for one week for Nominations. Bob Armstrong, then current Group Secretary agreed to let his name stand to continue, if elected.

Processing

After one week, no other CT'er had been nominated to run for Secretary.

Conclusion

Bob Armstrong was acclaimed volunteer Group Secretary indefinitely or until the next election, when called for.

E. 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]

The Sustainable Earth Project: A Collection of Villages
(A Discussion on Human Self-Government)



The Project

This Project seeks to initiate across the planet a conversation about a radical realignment in the world of both human relationships and human self-government.

Local Political Units (LPU's = Villages)

If the Earth was all local political units (A collection of villages), then we could have direct democracy via the new technologies (eliminate politicians by eliminating representative democracy).

Nations would dissolve themselves as countries and devolve all powers to the Villages. Sometimes the powers would be devolved to coalition committees of numbers of villages.

The Role of Governments

Governments would become the secretariats for carrying out the will of the people, as expressed in the Villages or groups of Villages.

Future Prospects

It is not a pipe dream.......it just needs people to come forward and demand it.

Multiplicity of Infrastructure

Question:

If you have hundreds of thousands of self-governing villages, how would you ever deal efficiently with all of the disparities of geography and economic potential?

Response

a. Geographic Differences

There is no doubt that geography showers certain benefits on the residents. For example, if you are a village on the Mediterranean Sea, there are economic advantages to having a Port. Are there any advantages to being a village in the middle of the Sahara Desert? Dry Air may be one from the health point of view of some people.

The goal of the "Sustainable Earth Project" is that through "cooperation", and "altruism", villages will work hard not to "win", but to help other villages to be 'Sustainable", even if that may mean some inequality of trade. This new paradigm works only if ALL villages are "sustainable". The goal is that each village is unique and has something to offer, that will keep the residents happy to be a resident in their village. We cannot afford to have villages that just don't work.

b. Economic Potential Differences

Again disparity causes problems........yes it is wonderful that some villages will have much greater economic potential than others. And we want to exploit this to the maximum (Within the rules of
sustainability). But it is not "us for ourselves" in the Sustainable Earth Project.....it is WE (All Villages) must achieve some decent local civic quality of life....so there is going to have to be "bartering", and it may have to be "Subsidy Bartering".........one village can trade something the other needs, for what it needs, despite the disparity of value of what is being "traded".
This may require that some villages are helped in some way by others (Sort of like Canadian Federal-Provincial transfer payments).

This is truly a sticky wicket.

One can think in terms of "regions of circles". So any village has a "circle of villages" around its borders. The most natural dynamic economically is for the village, and those in its first concentric
circle, to enter into bi-lateral, and multi-lateral arrangements, so that all villages get what they need, and can accomplish tasks important to all their residents, efficiently.

Physical/Legal Infrastructure (Needed to support inter-village dealings)

One could consider regional transportation as an "infrastructure" problem for a village to solve. This seems most amenable to cooperation - a village coalition to set up a regional transport authority for all of them in the first circle.

This is not so simple though..........we have circles overlaying circles in this paradigm.......But villages will be able to negotiate a workable, and desirable, solution to mass transit, where there is going to be decent service for all the residents of all villages in the "Coalition".

Villages with Scarce Resources

Question:

What will be done re poverty-stricken villages that have no prospects for improving themselves because all of their scarce resources are used up by their subsistence-level existence?"

Response

A partial, but substantial, solution to this is "Transfer Payments" to the "less sustainable on their own" villages. It may also be that some unsustainable villages will simply have to join with one or more bordering villages to achieve at least some basic level of sustainability, which then can be subsidized.

Invitation

We invite anyone reading this, and interested in giving input, to e-mail:

Bob Armstrong
bobarm111 at gmail.com

Acknowledgement

Some material above arose in an exchange between Peter McKillop & Bob Armstrong.

Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

Most Recent Revision: 23/10/21

Copyright - 2023 - Democratic Marxist Global Institute

[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)

Weekly Overview




A. Statistics

Week # 14 (23/10/16 – 22, 2023 [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.............(14 wks.)............Responses/Day....Resp./Day.......(14 wks.).

…14.........................28.......................37..........................1........................1........................3

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's Stats are running substantially behind the prior week and the year to date. The reason.....only 1 response per day.....activity slowed almost to a stop the last 2 weeks.

Are CT'ers now becoming bored with this issue of human life (Which dwarfs even the issues of Negative Climate Change, and the past COVID-19 pandemic)?.

Have they stopped caring who is going to be in control, as humans battle to survive in an environment more and more hostile to their continued existence?

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: The Sustainable Earth Project: A Collection of Villages (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. It is not a pipe-dream.......but requires a forceful coming together on the future of mankind.

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)