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

[Bob Armstrong]

Very good post Sid..re Chile......I'll take some time to consider it.........

On the "wildfires" point (which seems to particularly grate you....can't understand why! ):

Bob G and I believe that arson is a minor cause of current Canadian Wildfires. You and Dilip believe it is a "main" cause of the wildfires.

Not one other CT'er (I hope my memory is good on this) has ever expressed HERE an opinion on the main cause of Canadian Wildfires. Let's assume that they all are boggled by the reporting on this and simply don't know what to believe, and are not ready to reach a conclusion.

So how the hell are we supposed to get a "Generally Accepted" statement IN OUR GROUP, given these FACTS????????????????? It is impossible at the moment. And I so Proposed....and this group agreed!! You are in the minority in this group believing that we CAN get a generally accepted Statement on this IN OUR GROUP.

Our Statement does not aggrandize itself to say that this is "Generally Accepted in the World".......it is just little us bumbling along as best we can.......and we fully admit that our Statements may be WRONG! It is just the best we could do. Let the rest of the world CHALLENGE our Statements, with Reasons, if they think we are wrong (For example, the CT Negative Climate Change Statements # 9 & 10 are both Generally Accepted by that group, AND NOT generally accepted by the majority of the scientists around the globe; I will again be launching a Challenge to these two Statements # 9 & # 10 in broader groups when the Statements are proposed there for acceptance).

Bob A

[Sid Belzberg]

The bottom line is that his government made a mess of the economy, with huge inflation, and could not even maintain law and order, and could not defend the country from your alleged USA interference... all in all, a miserable failure. Please do not misinterpret history to save face for Democratic Marxism; DM is only Marxism put in place by a majority made up of Marxists... no place for hard and smart working people to be... they have to leave such a country and maybe establish a country of their own, as Ayn Rand so elegantly described, where they can live as Nature intended them to, without the political corruption and legal theft of unnatural dogma like DM...

Bob A claims that DM would respect the constitution. To avoid the tyranny of the majority, but that is precisely what Allende pursued. He nationalized US-owned copper mines without offering fair compensation, only offering book value that typically is a fraction of what the company's true value is. Guess what? Legalized theft has very serious consequences. Especially stealing from a potent adversary that at the time came close to a nuclear war with Allende's Allies, the Soviet Union and Cuba less than ten years earlier., Allende continually met with the leadership of the USSR and Cuba's leadership,
So Allende sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind. This is what the US response was that Allende only has himself to blame for,

1. Economic Retaliation: The U.S. responded to these nationalizations with economic measures. The Nixon administration sought to make the Chilean economy "scream," in the words of then-National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger. This involved reducing U.S. aid, blocking loans from international organizations, and taking other steps to put economic pressure on Chile.
2. Diplomatic Tensions: Relations between the U.S. and Chile deteriorated due to the nationalizations. The U.S. viewed Allende's socialist government, coupled with the expropriation of U.S. corporate assets, as a threat in the broader context of the Cold War.
3. Covert Actions: Declassified documents have revealed that the CIA actively sought to undermine Allende's presidency. This involved funding opposition media, supporting strikes, and aiding groups that were opposed to Allende. The intention was to destabilize his government, though the CIA has denied directly orchestrating the 1973 coup.
4. Long-Term Impacts: The tensions and interventions during Allende's presidency had long-term consequences for U.S.-Chile relations. The subsequent Pinochet dictatorship, which the U.S. initially supported, later became a source of contention itself due to human rights abuses.

On August 22, 1973, the Chilean Chamber of Deputies passed a resolution confirming that President Salvador Allende's government of violating the Chilean Constitution. The resolution was passed with the backing of the majority of the deputies, and it enumerated a series of constitutional breaches.

Some of the main points raised by the resolution included:

1. Unlawful Expropriation: It accused the government of allowing illegal seizures of land and other properties.
2. Violation of Judicial Authority: The resolution charged that the government had interfered with the independence of the judiciary by not acting on court rulings against the illegal seizures.
3. Press Freedom: It accused the government of infringing on press freedoms, noting issues like the takeover of "El Mercurio" newspaper.
4. Armed Groups: The resolution claimed that the government had tolerated or even promoted armed groups that operated outside the law

Earlier in this thread, Bob A referred to the idea of offering fair compensation to stolen assets but then referred to a "transition" in pursuit of abolishing private property. The Canadian Charter of Rights would have to be scrapped to pursue such a policy as Allende did.

If a government in Canada sought to abolish private property Allende style, it would raise serious concerns under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Constitution Act of 1982. The relevant sections of the Charter that might be implicated are:

1. Section 7 - Legal Rights: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." The principles of fundamental justice include procedural protections like due process. If property rights are considered under "security of the person," then any arbitrary or capricious deprivation of property could violate this section.
2. Section 8 - Legal Rights: "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure." While this section mainly addresses protections against unreasonable searches and confiscations by law enforcement, a broad and arbitrary confiscation of private property might be challenged under this right.

Make no mistake: any system that ignores the constitutional rights of the minority is a USSR-style communism, as was the case with Allende. Bob's trying to hijack threads about globalism by shifting the conversation to his "DM" agenda and trying to propose "generally accepted statements," as Dllip so elegantly criticized, is a perfect example of Bob's system of DM and his beloved Allende both supporting the "Tyranny of the Majority". Point 3 of Allende denying press freedoms is a perfect example of how Bob A invented a new rule in threads that if a controversy exists that he is on the opposite side of IE: Arson is the main cause of Wildfires, it can't be considered a general statement, a perfect example of a tyrannical attitude as was the same attitude that his hero Allende had.

Sorry, Bob, but both you and your 'DM', and Allende are examples of USSR communism that were Allende's close allies.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

Venezuela - incompetence aided by USA covert undermining of a legitimately elected regime.

China - agreed

Chile Under Allende - please do some research.....not a failure - USA covert strategy (Successful) to enlist the Chilean military (Gen. Pinochet) to bring about a coup. Salvadore Allende, duly elected President, had retreated to the Presidential House during the coup. It was surrounded by soldiers. Allende knew he would be tortured on capture. He committed suicide, NOT because his regime failed miserably (Your bad historical analysis - the role of the USA is well documented in documents now publicly available), but to avoid being tortured.

Allende should be a shining light in the firmament of Chilean history!

Bob A (DM'er)

The bottom line is that his government made a mess of the economy, with huge inflation, and could not even maintain law and order, and could not defend the country from your alleged USA interference... all in all, a miserable failure. Please do not misinterpret history to save face for Democratic Marxism; DM is only Marxism put in place by a majority made up of Marxists... no place for hard and smart working people to be... they have to leave such a country and maybe establish a country of their own, as Ayn Rand so elegantly described, where they can live as Nature intended them to, without the political corruption and legal theft of unnatural dogma like DM...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

Venezuela - incompetence aided by USA covert undermining of a legitimately elected regime.

China - agreed

Chile Under Allende - please do some research.....not a failure - USA covert strategy (Successful) to enlist the Chilean military (Gen. Pinochet) to bring about a coup. Salvadore Allende, duly elected President, had retreated to the Presidential House during the coup. It was surrounded by soldiers. Allende knew he would be tortured on capture. He committed suicide, NOT because his regime failed miserably (Your bad historical analysis - the role of the USA is well documented in documents now publicly available), but to avoid being tortured.

Allende should be a shining light in the firmament of Chilean history!

Bob A (DM'er)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Definitional Clarity

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 3

Original– 20/5/1; Revision – See below

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



Some Confusion

There have always been, side by side in the “free world” a partisan “Socialist” Party, and a partisan “Communist” Party. We have always believed, and we think they both believed, that they had “substantially” different platforms of governance/economics.

Many, though, have really been quite unaware of the fundamentally different features that identify one from the other – we simply have never done much theoretical digging on this.

Recently we developed the view that indeed our concept of “Democratic Marxism” also had a substantially different platform of governance/economics from the other two. We had been of the view that Democratic Socialism and Communism had as a key feature, “central planning”. Democratic Marxism, however, was based on the bottom-up decentralized governance principle (Principle of Subsidiarity), with an economic platform wherein, basically, labour has priority over capital (This latter seemed a feature shared by all three).

But some recently pointed out the fact that “Socialism” can be of 2 types:

1. Central Planning (Venezuela)
2. Decentralization (the Jewish Kibbutz system).

The Wikipedia entry on “Socialism”, indeed confirms this view.

The Canadian Situation

What happens when this question is applied to Canada?

It is clearly a “Democratic Capitalist” country. Yet, with respect to resident health care, it is said to have “socialized medicine”. This is as opposed to “Private Health Care” in the USA.

But what are the key features that define Canadian health care as a “socialist government program”? One key factor is that the full cost of the program (Or most, at least) is paid for by all the population generally out of the government general tax revenue. It is also operated by the government itself, and uses various agencies, such as the provinces, to implement the “free-to-the-people” program. But is this health program one of “Centralized Planning” in the “socialist” sense?

First of all, health care is a provincial power, not a federal one. So the federal program is an optional program to the provinces........organize your health care to these basic federal criteria, and you will qualify for funding. Beyond these criteria, you are free to develop the rest of your provincial health care system as you like (Though the reality is that the criteria are so extensive and stringent, that there is not a lot of room for provincial customization).

Secondly, in Canada, the governments provide public services in combination with community participation. So a hospital is not owned and operated by a government. It is a not-for-profit private, community corporation. It has “members” from the community, and they elect their Board of Directors, which decides on that hospital's policies and services (within government regulations). But once again, their government grant money to substantially cover the cost of operating the hospital, comes with the many strings of the outsourcing contract – one of which is to comply with the Ministry of Health guidelines. So...we have a community/government partnership. And the provincial Ministry guidelines must themselves conform with the terms of the federal outsourcing grant.

All this to ask – is “Centralized Planning” (in the socialism understanding) a key feature of the Canadian Health Care Service? In other words, is it a misnomer to refer to the Canadian Health Care system as “socialized”, meaning as would be established in a country with Democratic Socialism, such as for example, Venezuela?

A Definitional Realignment

Given all of the above, it is our conclusion that “Socialism” is a broad generic word indicating certain key features on implementation. And there are three distinct historical implementations of “Socialism”:

1. Democratic Socialism – as in Venezuela
2. Communism – as in China (Non-democratic; implemented by force)
3. Democratic Marxism – the closest a government came to this was Chile (1970-3) under the Unity Government of President Salvadore Allende (Coalition of a plurality Socialist party and smaller traditional national Communist Party).

Democratic Marxist Global Institute

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

Recent Revision: 20/10/17 - Bob Armstrong

Most Recent Postings:

DM-G/DMGF: 22/12/4; 23/9/19

TRN/Bob: 23/9/19

CT/HS-G: 23/9/19

Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute - 2020

1. Democratic Socialism – as in Venezuela... a failure
2. Communism – as in China (Non-democratic; implemented by force)... a nightmare for most Chinese, despite the Communism being inter-mingled with a lot of Capitalism
3. Democratic Marxism – the closest a government came to this was Chile (1970-3) under the Unity Government of President Salvadore Allende (Coalition of a plurality Socialist party and smaller traditional national Communist Party)... failed miserably with Allende committing suicide after the economy was in shambles, and nobody else willing to carry on with his 'legacy'...

[Bob Armstrong]

Definitional Clarity

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 3

Original– 20/5/1; Revision – See below

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



Some Confusion

There have always been, side by side in the “free world” a partisan “Socialist” Party, and a partisan “Communist” Party. We have always believed, and we think they both believed, that they had “substantially” different platforms of governance/economics.

Many, though, have really been quite unaware of the fundamentally different features that identify one from the other – we simply have never done much theoretical digging on this.

Recently we developed the view that indeed our concept of “Democratic Marxism” also had a substantially different platform of governance/economics from the other two. We had been of the view that Democratic Socialism and Communism had as a key feature, “central planning”. Democratic Marxism, however, was based on the bottom-up decentralized governance principle (Principle of Subsidiarity), with an economic platform wherein, basically, labour has priority over capital (This latter seemed a feature shared by all three).

But some recently pointed out the fact that “Socialism” can be of 2 types:

1. Central Planning (Venezuela)
2. Decentralization (the Jewish Kibbutz system).

The Wikipedia entry on “Socialism”, indeed confirms this view.

The Canadian Situation

What happens when this question is applied to Canada?

It is clearly a “Democratic Capitalist” country. Yet, with respect to resident health care, it is said to have “socialized medicine”. This is as opposed to “Private Health Care” in the USA.

But what are the key features that define Canadian health care as a “socialist government program”? One key factor is that the full cost of the program (Or most, at least) is paid for by all the population generally out of the government general tax revenue. It is also operated by the government itself, and uses various agencies, such as the provinces, to implement the “free-to-the-people” program. But is this health program one of “Centralized Planning” in the “socialist” sense?

First of all, health care is a provincial power, not a federal one. So the federal program is an optional program to the provinces........organize your health care to these basic federal criteria, and you will qualify for funding. Beyond these criteria, you are free to develop the rest of your provincial health care system as you like (Though the reality is that the criteria are so extensive and stringent, that there is not a lot of room for provincial customization).

Secondly, in Canada, the governments provide public services in combination with community participation. So a hospital is not owned and operated by a government. It is a not-for-profit private, community corporation. It has “members” from the community, and they elect their Board of Directors, which decides on that hospital's policies and services (within government regulations). But once again, their government grant money to substantially cover the cost of operating the hospital, comes with the many strings of the outsourcing contract – one of which is to comply with the Ministry of Health guidelines. So...we have a community/government partnership. And the provincial Ministry guidelines must themselves conform with the terms of the federal outsourcing grant.

All this to ask – is “Centralized Planning” (in the socialism understanding) a key feature of the Canadian Health Care Service? In other words, is it a misnomer to refer to the Canadian Health Care system as “socialized”, meaning as would be established in a country with Democratic Socialism, such as for example, Venezuela?

A Definitional Realignment

Given all of the above, it is our conclusion that “Socialism” is a broad generic word indicating certain key features on implementation. And there are three distinct historical implementations of “Socialism”:

1. Democratic Socialism – as in Venezuela
2. Communism – as in China (Non-democratic; implemented by force)
3. Democratic Marxism – the closest a government came to this was Chile (1970-3) under the Unity Government of President Salvadore Allende (Coalition of a plurality Socialist party and smaller traditional national Communist Party).

Democratic Marxist Global Institute

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

Recent Revision: 20/10/17 - Bob Armstrong

Most Recent Postings:

DM-G/DMGF: 22/12/4; 23/9/19

TRN/Bob: 23/9/19

CT/HS-G: 23/9/19

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)
(Started: 22/12/5)

Overview



A. Statistics


Week # 9 (23/9/12 – 17 [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.............(9 wks.)............Responses/Day....Resp./Day......... (9 wks.).

…42.........................73.......................37..........................4.....................9........................4

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's Stats are in line with the year to date. Note that the prior week we had an unusual huge jump over the prior week, a bit of an anomaly.......so not much use in comparing the two weeks.

There is no doubt that the momentum of this thread is rapidly speeding ahead. CT'ers are becoming more aware that this issue in human life dwarfs even the issues of Negative Climate Change, and the past COVID-19 pandemic. Who is going to be in control as humans battle to survive in an environment more and more hostile to their continued existence? We have now a core group of CT'ers following this thread.

B. The Anti-NWO/GR Position

Conspiracy Theory?

There is much disagreement whether the New World Order/Great Reset project actually exists. There are those who simply relegate it to the realm of “conspiracy theories”, such as QAnon.

The Time Line

But there are others, including myself, who assert that already a covert group of much influence (Sometimes quite overt) is directing government law and policy, in nations across the globe. They are incrementally implementing the pieces of an agenda for an eventual authoritarian, but benevolent, one-world government. We fear this centralization is not good in the long run. And it is not good, even if this group sees itself as a “Benevolent Dictatorship”.

C. A Proposal (Possible; not Utopian)

1. Nations dissolve themselves, and, in the process, devolve power down to Local Political Units (LPU's).
2. Eventually the world will become a “collection of villages”.
3. The goal is to significantly lessen the power of all governments, so as to make any geopolitical conflicts less dangerous for the globe as a whole.
4. It will not get rid of corruption, abuse of power, or tin-pot dictators.......but will limit the damage they can do.

We invite CT'ers to consider this position and to post here, their thoughts on it.

D. The “Conversation Format” Protocol

In discussing items in this thread, we use the "Conversation Format" protocol. It operates on four main principles:

1. A member can propose a Statement they consider “generally accepted, with Supporting Reasons.

2. If there is no proposed Revision of a Statement, with Reasons, nor Opposition Challenge, within one week, then the Statement is considered "generally-accepted”. (This follows the Quebec parliamentary procedure: No objection to a motion put, then no discussion or voting necessary - motion is considered passed by a majority, at least).

3. If the Statement is Challenged, with reasons, then the proposer of the Statement, and any others supporting the Statement can post Supplementary Supporting Reasons. Those opposing the Statement may also post supplementary Challenges, with Reasons.

4. The goal is not "unanimity", though that would be nice. The goal is "majority" acceptance of a Statement; this gives it the status of "commonly-accepted".

E. NWO/GR Thread “Responses”

There are some new articles out there from time to time on NWO/GR. The articles come in different forms: on globalization on many fronts, world free-trade, and higher governments stomping on the wishes of the local residents, and their local governments, etc..

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the NWO/GR posts of interest they see elsewhere. Toss in a post when you see one. The topic of human self-governance is one of the most important in our human future, especially if some covert group of influential people is trying to have us give up our human rights, and take control!

Do you want a global autocratic totalitarian government (Even if “benevolent”)?

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.

2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least twice per week, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is going to be necessary that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

Bob A (Anti-NWO/As Participant)

[Sid Belzberg]

Bob, why do you even bother talking to somebody who treats you with such rudeness and disrespect?

And so says the one who refers to me as a "bully and liar " after proving his stupidity. Unlike you, Bob has the classiness to admit
to his own mistakes as he did here.

[Peter McKillop]

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

Hi Sid: ....

Bob, why do you even bother talking to somebody who treats you with such rudeness and disrespect?

[Dilip Panjwani]

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

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

Yeah, and that intervention could take the form of going with the other PP (Pierre P), where he (Bob) would be in lots and lots of good company, and he could achieve at least the 'D' of his DM...

[Fred Harvey]

Nature of this CT'er Group

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

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



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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

[Sid Belzberg]

Hi Sid:

1. RE negative climate change Statement # 9:

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

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

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

Where's the beef???

2. Re Group Secretary

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


Response

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

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

[Decision]

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Secretary Replacement Nominations



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

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

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

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


Bob A (As Group Secretary)

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

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

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

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

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

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Human Self-Government

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

Statements Generally Accepted by Democratic Marxists in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem. They represent the partisan political spectrum and the issue spectrum.

Statement # 4 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)

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

Statement # 5 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)

Over time, electors have democratically accepted the government structure proposed at the time, usually some variant of earlier forms of government (Who are "electors" has evolved over time).

Statement # 6 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)

Some societies have had imposed on them, or chosen by election, a dictatorship (Rule by the One). However, some societies have chosen by election, a democracy (Rule by the Majority).

Statement # 7 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)

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

Statement # 8 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)

People (A majority of the local government, at least) have the right to agree with each other on a government structure for themselves and can join hands to act jointly to govern themselves, and act in a way they feel "benefits themselves and humanity", so long as there is a respect for basic human rights.

Statement # 9 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)

“Direct” democracy is preferable to “Representative” Democracy, if implementable. Usually, direct democracy has been practiced in small, local political units. But with today's technology, direct democracy voting can be used within larger political units.

Statement # 10 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)

Since people should be able to focus on higher activities of life (Philosophy, the Arts, Politics, etc.), automation will be a key factor in making this happen. It can free people from lower, less rewarding, work and life tasks. So some citizens will be able to dedicate more time to public life and government, and how to improve it.

Statement # 11 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)

Good education enlightens the mind. Today's rote data learning only challenges the memory. Without the former, society will have neither a wise electorate, nor a wise government.

Processing

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

[Secretarial Note:

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

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Human Self-Government

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

Update

Democratic Marxism



Statements Generally Accepted by Democratic Marxists in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem. They represent the partisan political spectrum and the issue spectrum.



A. Statements on Democratic Marxism


Statement # 1

Democratic Marxism operates within a democratic multi-party electoral system. It can be voted into government; it can be voted out of government. There will be no one-party system.

Statement # 2

Democratic Marxism respects:

a. Human Rights

b. Constitutional Rights

c. Worker's Rights

d. Rights accorded by law.

Statement # 3

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

Supporting Reasons

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

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

B. Group Secretary Rulings

Ruling # P1 (Procedural)

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

C. Processing [re Other Partisan Group]

1. Statement can be proposed, with Supporting Reasons.

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

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

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

Note:

Phase I - Interpretation Challenge (That this is an inaccurate Statement, as seen by the other group itself) : If there is no "Challenge" within one week , then the Statement is generally accepted, and joins the list of generally accepted DM Statements.

Phase II - Opposition Challenge (That this is an unworkable position or false statement): Cannot be processed until the Statement itself becomes generally accepted by the Partisan Members in this group.]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by Democratic Marxists in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Forum). The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.They represent the partisan political spectrum and the issue spectrum.

Statement # 3

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

Supporting Reasons

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

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

Processing

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

Decision

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

Bob A (As Group Secretary)