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

[Fred Harvey]

A very good and genuine question, Pargat!

Let us first look at the negativity of current forms of government:
Most, if not all, politicians are in politics because they make a lot of money doing so, almost all of it with underhand deals. That is why it has been called 'a blood sport', in which they want to win elections by hook or crook or destroying others. And it is so because of the power to meddle in everyone else's 'business' that winning elections gives them. And if there is a 'voting block' they can please by 'bribing with stupid laws', they would do so, even if it unfairly harms large numbers of those who would not be voting for them anyway... So, a good system is one in which the government and its bureaucracy has minimal power (power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely...)

Now what can the government do for the citizens?
1. Administer justice in an easily accessible and lawyerism-free manner, so that the crooks amongst us cannot harm the decent amongst us, irrespective of how wealthy the crooks and poor the decent ones are.
2. Encourage new ventures, big and small, by making capital needed for business readily available to all (and not only to Trumps who have friends in big banks whom they 'deceive' with false statements and whom they bribe). This will increase the jobs available exponentially, and Bob's pool of 'too many workers for too few jobs' will be eliminated, and workers will be able to command a very decent wage. Let us also realize that several businesses are always looking for lots of good employees even while the 'unemployment' rate amongst Bob's 'excellently developed and ready to work hard workers' is high. A good government would devote lots of energy to matching the unemployed to appropriate jobs individually, so that the truly lazy bums run out of excuses.
3. Have a 'circles within circles' set up (which Bob loves), with all circles following the same political philosophy, so that everyone is easily connected with everyone else, and yet individual circles are independent to some extent. And if such a system encompasses the entire world population, we shall not be wasting resources on militaries or have 'border-related issues' at all.
4. There unfortunately always are a few individuals and families who fall on hard times for very little fault of their own, and need altruistic help to get back on their own feet. The 'circles within circles' set up would greatly facilitate such charitable acts taking place...
5. Provide lots and lots of factual information to the citizens, who can then make their own decisions on various matters, rather than 'mandating' what the corrupt politicians' corrupt friends want the citizens to do...

Hope this helps; essentially, success is measured by how happy the citizens are...

Interesting how your list omits the first requirement of local government......provide essential services for civilized living!

All you guys can bleat about is theory. I have always felt that the world went to hell in a handbasket when we started graduating people in "political science". There is absolutely no science in politics. On the other hand, political history should be required reading for all four of you!

[Dilip Panjwani]

Yes. May I point out that Scandinavian countries with socialist governments and high tax rates always top the charts on happiest countries lists.

You need to educate yourself, Bob G.:

https://www.heritage.org/progressivi...vian-socialism

Socialism in Scandinavia is a myth. Capitalism is what drives the countries there. There is virtually no progressive taxation. with heavy taxes on all citizens, including the middle class, which bears a far greater burden than its counterpart in the United States. According to the Center for Political Studies, low-income Danes pay an effective marginal tax rate of 56 percent, the middle class, 57 percent.
Politicians are least powerful in Sweden, with Ministers taking the bus to work. There were basically no COVID 'mandates' in Sweden as compared to the rest of the world...
Even health-care funding is based on a 'business' model, unlike in Canada, where political correctness is more important than efficiency and smart & hard work...

And despite all the above, Scandinavia also has quite a burden of unhappiness today... we could certainly do better...

[Bob Gillanders]

. success is measured by how happy the citizens are...

Yes. May I point out that Scandinavian countries with socialist governments and high tax rates always top the charts on happiest countries lists.

[Dilip Panjwani]

... how do we MEASURE the success of any political system?

A very good and genuine question, Pargat!

Let us first look at the negativity of current forms of government:
Most, if not all, politicians are in politics because they make a lot of money doing so, almost all of it with underhand deals. That is why it has been called 'a blood sport', in which they want to win elections by hook or crook or destroying others. And it is so because of the power to meddle in everyone else's 'business' that winning elections gives them. And if there is a 'voting block' they can please by 'bribing with stupid laws', they would do so, even if it unfairly harms large numbers of those who would not be voting for them anyway... So, a good system is one in which the government and its bureaucracy has minimal power (power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely...)

Now what can the government do for the citizens?
1. Administer justice in an easily accessible and lawyerism-free manner, so that the crooks amongst us cannot harm the decent amongst us, irrespective of how wealthy the crooks and poor the decent ones are.
2. Encourage new ventures, big and small, by making capital needed for business readily available to all (and not only to Trumps who have friends in big banks whom they 'deceive' with false statements and whom they bribe). This will increase the jobs available exponentially, and Bob's pool of 'too many workers for too few jobs' will be eliminated, and workers will be able to command a very decent wage. Let us also realize that several businesses are always looking for lots of good employees even while the 'unemployment' rate amongst Bob's 'excellently developed and ready to work hard workers' is high. A good government would devote lots of energy to matching the unemployed to appropriate jobs individually, so that the truly lazy bums run out of excuses.
3. Have a 'circles within circles' set up (which Bob loves), with all circles following the same political philosophy, so that everyone is easily connected with everyone else, and yet individual circles are independent to some extent. And if such a system encompasses the entire world population, we shall not be wasting resources on militaries or have 'border-related issues' at all.
4. There unfortunately always are a few individuals and families who fall on hard times for very little fault of their own, and need altruistic help to get back on their own feet. The 'circles within circles' set up would greatly facilitate such charitable acts taking place...
5. Provide lots and lots of factual information to the citizens, who can then make their own decisions on various matters, rather than 'mandating' what the corrupt politicians' corrupt friends want the citizens to do...

Hope this helps; essentially, success is measured by how happy the citizens are...

[Sid Belzberg]

[Pargat Perrer]

Democracy & Diversity

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 4

Original – 20/6/22; Revision – See below

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

.....

Hey Bob A., just wondering what you think of something I believe about politics in general....

it's a variation on something that's already been said about shucksters .....

"You can make SOME people happy SOME of the time, but you can't make ALL the people happy ALL of the time."

It seems so true, and it means there can never ba a perfect OR EVEN A NEAR-PERFECT political system.

Therefore.... how do we MEASURE the success of any political system?

[Bob Armstrong]

Democracy & Diversity

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 4

Original – 20/6/22; Revision – See below

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





The Gamble

Democratic Marxism sets out a platform of self-governance and economics. And it sets up a fundamental structure within which this platform can be implemented. But what happens when ideology meets the local democracy of the Local Political Unit (LPU)?

The problem old-style Communism faced was the revolt of many (Majority?) electors to many of the Communist platforms. Communism's answer? Use the gun; trample human rights of the citizens; suppress all opposition – then implement the ideology & platform without any public opposition. Did it really work?? The jury is still out on Chinese Communism, but it has all the negative features that necessitate its rejection.

What will be Democratic Marxism's answer when an LPU wants to go its own way, differently somehow, democratically? The problem is that DM proudly declares that the LPU's have all power! They have the real control! Democratic Marxism's Global Model LPU can be tweaked by any LPU, or even outright rejected for itself!

This is where Democratic Marxism has to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. It is committed first to “democratic process” and “local power”.

Human society is governed by laws. Laws are passed by the governing authority, whether it be by direct democracy (Citizen voting), or, by the representation circle to which the electors have given power over their lives. And if the system is working, and Dem. Marxism has it right, each LPU, hopefully, will implement laws modelled after the proposals of the Democratic Marxist Vetting Committee (DMVC). But should an LPU, within its borders, decide to revert to Wildwest Capitalism, this will be legal........but, hopefully, the effect of such rogue actions will be limited and minimized and restrained by the general structural governing context within which every LPU exists. Diversity will definitely be the order of the day in a true democracy – and maybe one should support the saying used financially: There is safety in diversity.

A Suitable Test Nation for DM

The DMVC has targeted Canada for the first partisan Democratic Marxist Party......and it will be provincial.

The reason is the possibility of fundamental societal structure change within the existing Canadian Constitutional documents. Canada presents the possibility because constitutionally, municipalities are the “creatures” of a province. It is therefore open to a Canadian province to realign local government as currently existing, into the DM LPU structure. The province also has, constitutionally, full jurisdiction over certain civil powers, as against the federal government (Eg. Health Care, Education, etc.). So.....IF it was determined to do it........any Canadian province could “down-load” all of its powers to the LPU's. Thereafter it would identify itself in two ways:

1. as the hand-maiden of the LPU's, while remaining, as a provincial representative circle of the provincial electors;
2. as the traditional province with which the federal government must deal within the existing constitutional structure of Canada.
   
   The federal government may object to the provincial restructuring, but will be toothless....it is within the provincial power of a Canadian province to do this. And the federal government will have to continue to deal with that province as the valid “Provincial Government”.
   
   Commencement of Partisan Democratic Marxism in Canada

The DMVC will receive applications from those wishing to apply for provincial party status as: The Democratic Marxist Party of (Province). For those ideologically acceptable, the DMVC will grant a formal “Endorsement” - the approval of the ginger group's use of the name.

Thereafter, the provincial party will develop a provincial DM platform suitable to their province, in concert with the DMVC.

Should the Provincial Party at any time stray from adhering to fundamental DM principles/platforms, it risks the DMVC withdrawing the “Endorsement”, and disowning the Provincial Party. Of course, the DMVC may still consider itself an ally of the rogue party, and see it as still the best provincial option, and thus continue to work with the provincial party, should it so desire.

Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

Author: Bob Armstrong, Chairperson, DMGI Vetting Committee
Reviser: Bob Armstrong – 20/10/17

Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute - 2020

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Human Self-Government (Non-Partisan)

(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 # 10 (23/9/18 – 24 [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.............(10 wks.)............Responses/Day....Resp./Day......... (10 wks.).

…38.........................42.......................37..........................3.....................4........................4

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's Stats are pretty much dead on 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)

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Human Self-Government (Non-Partisan)

[Part II; see Part I above]

B. Group Secretary Rulings

Ruling # P1 (Procedural)

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

C. Processing

1. Statement can be proposed, with Supporting Reasons.

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


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


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

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Human Self-Government (Non-Partisan)

(Problem: NWO [New World Order] – Label of the Left; GR [The Great Reset] - Label of the Right)
(Started: 22/12/5)

Statements Update (23/9/26)
[Part I of 2]



A. 11 Statements

(Differing States of Processing)

(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".

Statement # 11 (Proposed)

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 Reasons

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).

Processing

There will be one week for a Challenge; deadline: Friday, Sept. 29 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

[See Part II below]

Bob A (As Group Secretary]

---

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism

UPDATE (23/9/26)



A. 11 Statements

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

1. Worker's Rights
   
   d. Rights accorded by Laws

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.

Statement # 4.

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

Statement # 5.

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.

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.

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

Statement # 8.

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

“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

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

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.

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.

[Secretarial Note: Statements # 1 - # 11 on Democratic Marxism have been endorsed as accurate by:

a. A group of about 40 Canadian chess tournament players on their national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics). They represent the partisan political spectrum, and the issue spectrum.

b. 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.]

B. Processing Protocol

The "Conversation Format Protocol" used operates on two approaches:

a. The Revision Challenge:

1. Someone puts forward a Statement, with Support Reasons (Executive Summary format preferred) that they believe to be generally accepted by this group.
2. If within one week, no DMGF'er launches a “Revision Challenge”, with reasons, to the Statement (It does not represent Democratic Marxism as seen by this group), then it is deemed generally accepted and joins the list of DM Statements.
   
   3. The Statement can be subject to a “Revision Challenge”. A Statement, when proposed, is given the initial benefit of the doubt that it is indeed "generally-accepted". So it is up to the Revision Challenger to muster support, and establish that the Statement is not “generally accepted” as DM policy. [This follows the Quebec parliamentary procedure: Where there is no objection to a motion put, then no discussion or voting is necessary. The motion is given the benefit of the doubt that it is generally accepted; it is passed (by a majority, at least, if not unanimously)]. A “Revision Challenge” can be processed to get an agreed upon Statement. Then it is processed in the normal way.

b. Opposition Challenge

1. A "Challenge" of the Statement that it is unworkable/untenable, with Opposition Reasons, can be put forward, once the Statement has been settled. This group can then see both sides of the issue, before they can make any good assessment as to whether or not they wish to Support the Statement or Supplement the Challenge. There will be a one week period for this.

2. When the deadline has expired, the Group Secretary makes the decision as to whether the Statement has been generally accepted, and will join the list of other generally accepted Statements.
Statements are always open to a “new” Challenge; the Group Secretary will make a decision as to whether a Challenge is identical to one already dismissed and need not be processed again.

3. The Statement can be subject to a “Revision Challenge”. A Statement, when proposed, is given the initial benefit of the doubt that it is indeed "generally-accepted". So it is up to the Revision Challenger to muster support, and establish that the Statement is not “generally accepted” as DM policy. [This follows the Quebec parliamentary procedure: Where there is no objection to a motion put, then no discussion or voting is necessary. The motion is given the benefit of the doubt that it is generally accepted; it is passed (by a majority, at least, if not unanimously)]. A “Revision Challenge” can be processed to get an agreed upon Statement. Then it is processed in the normal way.

C. Goal

The goal is not "unanimity", though that would be nice. The goal is "majority" general acceptance of a Statement.

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)

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.

[Secretarial Note:

1. These Statements # 4 - # 11were 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.]

Statement # 4

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

Statement # 5

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

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

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

Statement # 8

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

“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

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

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

After one week, no CT'er came forward to launch either a "Revision Challenge" and/or an "Objection Challenge".

Conclusion

These Statements are generally accepted by the Democratic Marxist members of this CT'er group, and join the DM List of Statements.

[Secretarial Note: This set of DM Statements have the identical numbering to the set of Statements adopted by the Fb Democratic Marxist Global Forum.]


Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Group Secretary Election

Nomination Process - Post # 368 - 23/9/17

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

Processing

After one week, no other CT'er has been nominated to run for Secretary. I allowed my name to stand.

Conclusion

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


Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Sid Belzberg]

Recent Townhall meeting Aurora Ontario

FREEDOM RISING: MAN UNMASKS CANADIAN CITY COUNCIL'S ECOFASCIST NWO PLAN & THE AUDIENCE APPLAUDS

• WATCH

Play

[Fred Harvey]

Thread Activity/Participation

...........then we 12 CT'ers have done a yeoman's job in producing the three sets of good Statements we have.

Does this mean that this little project is worth the small amount of our time per day we spend on it, including me?

Bob A (As Participant)

I never bother to read your "statements"! Too long and repetitive....what if the other hard-core people without a life are like me?