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

[Dilip Panjwani]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians 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.

Statement # 3

The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Processing: Revision proposed (Post # 174 - 23/8/13); being processed; deadline: Sunday, 23/8/20 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Proposed Revision 1:

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Challenge (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Pargat Perrer, Post # 240 - 23/8/19:

The last sentence should be removed. No Libertarian here, nor other person, has raised as an issue self-harm.

[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Pargat; if not satisfactory, will he please post a revision and we will amend his Challenge.]

Processing: Support for the existing Statement must be posted by the deadline of Saturday, 23/8/26 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Similarly for anyone "supplementing" the Challenge. Otherwise the Statement will be revised as requested.

Proposed Revision 2 (Of Revision 1):

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one does something which even the vast majority thinks is harming him/herself and illogical, one is free to do so.

Challenge to Proposed Revision 1 (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Dilip Panjwani, Post # 249 - 23/8/19

Sid and Neal and IM O'Donnell may well be absolutely right, though in the minority, that a young healthy person should not take modRNA vaccines... and no one has the right to force them to do so. (We know that it is very very unlikely that an unvaccinated person can harm someone who is already vaccinated, by transmission). The other examples are MAID even in the absence of a terminal dying state, and abortions which every woman has a right to in Canada (with all the scientific evidence we have to date indicating that the fetus does not have 'individual consciousness', but is just a part of the mother's body).

[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Dilip and his Statement # 3 2nd revision; if not satisfactory, will he please post a revision and we will amend his Challenge.]

Processing: Support for the existing Statement must be posted by the deadline of Saturday, 23/8/26 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Similarly for anyone "supplementing" the Challenge. Otherwise the Statement will be revised as requested.

Bob A (Group Secretary).

Sounds fine, Bob.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re Revision 2 (Proposed) to Statement # 3

Dilip - Thanks for confirming the Challenge as drafted by me is acceptable to you.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians 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.

Statements # 1 - # 6

Challenge - Pargat Perrer - unworkable (Post # 240 - 23/8/19 - all challenges are effectively the same point).

Support: Dilip Panjwani - Post # 250 - 23/8/19

Simple answer: Judges and police, understanding and believing in the concept of Libertarianism would be the overseers. The Jury and Judges use common-sense in interpretation of the law, though they often have to struggle with contradictory laws we all face today. How they are appointed is an issue that can be easily worked out by the writers of a Libertarian constitution, which we are not doing at this stage.

Note: Secretary attempt to draft the Support; if not satisfactory to Dilip, would he please revise, and the revision will be substituted.]

Processing Opposing Positions:

Libertarians have supported their Statements.

So the onus is now on the Challengers to draft Statements (Not questions) opposing the particular Libertarian Policy Statement objected to and setting out the alternate position, if possible. Then, moving forward, the two opposing views will always be posted together. They have one week from the date of the "Support" to do this, or we move on; deadline: Saturday, Aug. 26 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Of course, since all Statements are technically always in process, opposing Statements may also be made in future, and will then be processed.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians 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.

Statement # 3

The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Processing: Revision proposed (Post # 174 - 23/8/13); being processed; deadline: Sunday, 23/8/20 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Support for Statement: Bob Armstrong Post # 259 - 23/8/20 (As Participant)

The sentence on self-harm is indeed Libertarian policy, and should not be removed. Dilip Panjwani (Post # 249 - 23/8/19) has now confirmed this (Though he prefers a re-wording with which I agree).

Proposed Revision 1:

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Challenge (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Pargat Perrer, Post # 240 - 23/8/19:

The last sentence should be removed. No Libertarian here, nor other person, has raised as an issue self-harm.

[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Pargat; if not satisfactory, will he please post a revision and we will amend his Challenge.]

Processing: Support for the existing Statement must be posted by the deadline of Saturday, 23/8/26 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Similarly for anyone "supplementing" the Challenge. Otherwise the Statement will be revised as requested.

Support for Statement: Bob Armstrong Post # 259 - 23/8/20 (As Participant)

The sentence on self-harm is indeed Libertarian policy, and should not be removed. Dilip Panjwani (Post # 249 - 23/8/19) has now confirmed this (Though he prefers a re-wording with which I am in agreement).

Proposed Revision 2 (Of Revision 1):

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one does something which even the vast majority thinks is harming him/herself and illogical, one is free to do so.

Challenge to Proposed Revision 1 (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Dilip Panjwani, Post # 249 - 23/8/19

Sid and Neal and IM O'Donnell may well be absolutely right, though in the minority, that a young healthy person should not take modRNA vaccines... and no one has the right to force them to do so. (We know that it is very very unlikely that an unvaccinated person can harm someone who is already vaccinated, by transmission). The other examples are MAID even in the absence of a terminal dying state, and abortions which every woman has a right to in Canada (with all the scientific evidence we have to date indicating that the fetus does not have 'individual consciousness', but is just a part of the mother's body).

[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Dilip and his Statement # 3 2nd revision; if not satisfactory, will he please post a revision and we will amend his Challenge.]

Processing: Support for the existing Statement must be posted by the deadline of Saturday, 23/8/26 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Similarly for anyone "supplementing" the Challenge. Otherwise the Statement will be revised as requested.

Support for Revision 2 - Bob Armstrong Post # 259 - 23/8/20 (As Participant)

I have always believed Libertarians felt an individual was entitled to do self-harm, under their view of "Freedom". This is why I had independently, as a Participant, originally included a Statement on this when drafting our original Statement # 3. And, I am satisfied with Dilip's proposed Revision 2 of Statement # 3.

However I am not in agreement with part of Dilip's reasons for challenge. I specifically claim that "a young healthy person should take modRNA vaccines, if necessary to ward off/minimize intensity of a particular illness". But I do agree that they have the freedom not to be forced into taking them.......however.........they may then suffer personal negative consequences due to the need to protect society at large (They may become sick and be a possible transmitter to those who are still vulnerable [No immunity at that point]).

I agree with Dilip's position on MAID.

I agree with abortion, but I reserve judgment on Dilip's assertion that from conception to birth, "the fetus does not have 'individual consciousness', but is just a part of the mother's body".

Bob A (As Participant).

[Pargat Perrer]

Simply an impossible task... to create a separate law for each and every possible action, in each and every possible situation, each and every individual may take in the future...
Liars (lawyers) may want you try to do it ad infinitum, as it would increase their business with all the complicated laws resulting from the endeavor.

And similarly, a universal Natural Law and interpretation of it using "common sense" is equally impossible. But at least with the system we have now, there is a way to navigate through the existing laws and try and find a precedent ... and if none exists, then we create one AND DOCUMENT IT IN A LAW.

You really have a problem with lawyers, and I can understand, but you tar them all with the same brush. What you fail to recognize is that there are good lawyers, who try and create a legal system that is fair.

At the same time, you paint a picture of benevolent Judges and Police who are always interpreting common-sense in a universal manner. How insane of you to imagine that. It has never happened in human history ... nothing even close.

The denigration of lawyers and the elevation of Judges and Police to universal exceptionalism has an alternate political characterization: Fascism. Do you, Dilip, admit to being a Fascist?

Speaking of wolves in sheep's clothing which Bob A. has brought up in this thread, it does seem that Libertarianism as characterized by Dilip is really Fascism in sheep's clothing.

Bob A. has admitted quite readily to being a Democratic Marxist ... maybe Dilip you can take his cue and admit your leanings with as much zeal. More likely, you will shout shrilly: "TROLL! TROLL! TROLL!"

[Pargat Perrer]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians 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.

Statements # 1 - # 6

Challenge - Pargat Perrer - unworkable (Post # 240 - 23/8/19 - all challenges are effectively the same point).

Support: Dilip Panjwani - Post # 250 - 23/8/19

Simple answer: Judges and police, understanding and believing in the concept of Libertarianism would be the overseers. The Jury and Judges use common-sense in interpretation of the law, though they often have to struggle with contradictory laws we all face today. How they are appointed is an issue that can be easily worked out by the writers of a Libertarian constitution, which we are not doing at this stage.

Note: Secretary attempt to draft the Support; if not satisfactory to Dilip, would he please revise, and the revision will be substituted.]

Processing Opposing Positions:

Libertarians have supported their Statements.

So the onus is now on the Challengers to draft Statements (Not questions) opposing the particular Libertarian Policy Statement objected to and setting out the alternate position, if possible. Then, moving forward, the two opposing views will always be posted together. They have one week from the date of the "Support" to do this, or we move on; deadline: Saturday, Aug. 26 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Of course, since all Statements are technically always in process, opposing Statements may also be made in future, and will then be processed.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

Bob .... you have really over-complicated this, but I will try one last time to subscribe to your requirements .... why? I don't even know.

You apparently want me to provide a Challenging statement(s) which cannot be questions. But Bob, the questions I asked are extremely necessary to be asked ... because as you know, "the devil is in the details". But ok, let's not ask any questions.



Dilip's answer to my questions about who are the Overseers and how are they appointed / regulated says this:

"Judges and police, understanding and believing in the concept of Libertarianism would be the overseers. The Jury and Judges use common-sense in interpretation of the law, ..."

I bolded the term "common-sense" and you will now see why.

My Challenger statement to ALL of the statements of the Libertarian viewpoints (statements #1 thru #6) is as follows, in 2 parts folllowed by a Summary Statement:

Part 1:
There is no such thing as universal common-sense. Since a common-sense interpretation of the Natural Law ("do no harm to others, except in fair competition") is always subject to personal bias as to what exactly common-sense IS, there can be no consistent and irrefutable, indisputable interpretation of the Natural Law. Consequently, any attempt at one-size-fits-all Libertarianism will lead to alienation / protests / violence / overthrow of the system. Even the vaunted Judges and Police will be at each other's throats, because they have differing views of common-sense. This is the nature of humanity as evidenced throughout human history."

Part 2:
There is no such thing as a universal definition of "fair competition". Therefore even where common-sense is not in dispute (if that could ever be the case, which Part 1 disputes), still disputes will inevitably arise over what constitutes exceptions under the Fair Competition clause. Lawyers will endlessly argue about possible exceptions, which current legal systems try to encapsulate under the living, evolving system of laws and sub-laws, which Natural Law counter-intuitively sets out to abolish.

Summary Statement:
Therefore, the very idea of a single one-size-fits-all Natural Law is illogical and is doomed to failure.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

Thanks for agreeing to the protocol.......I believe it makes it clearer for all of us to understand in future. As well, your Statement in opposition will now be always matched with the Libertarian Statement, showing continuing opposition to the Libertarian position.

I will integrate your Post # 261 (23/8/20) into my future secretarial processing.

And if a Secretary can give a personal opinion - you have a good counter-statement.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Pargat Perrer]

.....We know that it is very very unlikely that an unvaccinated person can harm someone who is already vaccinated, by transmission. .

Dilip, you continue to amaze us all with your wisdom and knowledge .... thank you for telling us all what we know.

SARCASM!!!!!

[Bob Armstrong]

Statement # 8 (Proposed by Pargat Perrer - see Note below)

Libertarianism will employ 24/7 digital surveillance of every citizen in public spaces, including not just video but audio as well. This will help Natural Law enforcement to have the facts necessary to make discretionary decisions on whether to lay charges for breach of the Natural Law or other laws. It will also provide needed evidence for court hearings, where the issue is whether the Natural Law provided an exemption for non-compliance. This is seen as a necessary over-ride of the citizen's right of privacy and freedom from surveillance.

[Note: Group secretary attempted to extract Statement # 8 from the Post # 218 (23/8/18) of Pargat Perrer. Pargat has not suggested any revision to date.]

Processing:

a. An "Inaccuracy Challenge" (that this is not an accurate Statement of Libertarian Policy) has been launched (See below); Deadline for formal Challenge as not Libertarian policy: (See below);
b. No “Opposition Challenge” (that Statement is untenable/unworkable) has been formally launched ; some postings indicate some disagreements of some kinds, but it is not clear what is being challenged. Deadline as to “Opposition Challenge” – always open to be made.

Revision Challenge - Dilip Panjwani - Post # x, 23/8/?

Libertarianism will employ 24/7 digital surveillance of every citizen in public spaces, including not just video but audio as well. This will help Natural Law enforcement to have the facts necessary to make discretionary decisions on whether to lay charges for breach of the Natural Law or other laws. It will also provide needed evidence for court hearings, where the issue is whether the Natural Law provided an exemption for non-compliance. This is seen as a necessary over-ride of the citizen's right of privacy and freedom from surveillance for the purpose of justice and order.

[Secretary attempt to formalize Dilip's post previously seen; he can revise as necessary.]

Challenge: Added to the last sentence: "for the purpose of justice and order". It is important to give the reason rights are being over-ridden.

Processing: The proposed revision has one week to be challenged as not Libertarian policy; deadline: [Cannot locate Post] Setting Sunday, Aug. 27 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Dilip Panjwani]

dilip, you continue to amaze us all with your wisdom and knowledge .... Thank you for telling us all what we know.

Sarcasm!!!!!

troll troll troll

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians 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 # 3

The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Processing of Revision 1 Challenge: Revision 1 proposed (Pargat Perrer - Post # 174 - 23/8/13); Statement Supported; not one CT'er, within one week, came forward to supplement the proposed Revision 1 Challenge.

Conclusion: The Revision 1 proposed is dismissed.

Proposed Revision 2:

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one does something which even the vast majority thinks is harming him/herself and illogical, one is free to do so.

[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Dilip and his Revised Statement # 3; Dilip has agreed with the Secretary's version (Post # 256 - 23/8/19)

Challenge (Proposed Revision) (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Dilip Panjwani, Post # 249 - 23/8/19

Sid and Neal and IM O'Donnell may well be absolutely right, though in the minority, that a young healthy person should not take modRNA vaccines... and no one has the right to force them to do so. (We know that it is very very unlikely that an unvaccinated person can harm someone who is already vaccinated, by transmission). The other examples are MAID even in the absence of a terminal dying state, and abortions which every woman has a right to in Canada (with all the scientific evidence we have to date indicating that the fetus does not have 'individual consciousness', but is just a part of the mother's body).

Supplementing Revision Challenge - Bob Armstrong Post # 259 - 23/8/20 (As Participant)

I have always believed Libertarians felt an individual was entitled to do self-harm, under their view of "Freedom". This is why I had independently, as a Participant, originally included a Statement on this when drafting our original Statement # 3. And, I am satisfied with Dilip's proposed Revision of Statement # 3.

However I am not in agreement with part of Dilip's reasons for challenge.

I specifically claim that "a young healthy person should take modRNA vaccines, if necessary to ward off/minimize intensity of a particular illness". But I do agree that they have the freedom not to be forced into taking them.......however.........they may then suffer personal negative consequences due to the need to protect society at large (They may become sick and be a possible transmitter to those who are still vulnerable [No immunity at that point]).

I agree with Dilip's position on MAID.

I agree with abortion, but I reserve judgment on Dilip's assertion that from conception to birth, "the fetus does not have 'individual consciousness', but is just a part of the mother's body".

Processing: Support for the existing Statement must be posted by the deadline of Sunday, 23/8/27 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Similarly for anyone else "supplementing" the Challenge. Otherwise the Statement will be revised as requested.

Bob A (As Participant).

[Sid Belzberg]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians 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 # 3

The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Processing of Revision 1 Challenge: Revision 1 proposed (Pargat Perrer - Post # 174 - 23/8/13); Statement Supported; not one CT'er, within one week, came forward to supplement the proposed Revision 1 Challenge.

Conclusion: The Revision 1 proposed is dismissed.

Proposed Revision 2:

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one does something which even the vast majority thinks is harming him/herself and illogical, one is free to do so.

[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Dilip and his Revised Statement # 3; Dilip has agreed with the Secretary's version (Post # 256 - 23/8/19)

Challenge (Proposed Revision) (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Dilip Panjwani, Post # 249 - 23/8/19

Sid and Neal and IM O'Donnell may well be absolutely right, though in the minority, that a young healthy person should not take modRNA vaccines... and no one has the right to force them to do so. (We know that it is very very unlikely that an unvaccinated person can harm someone who is already vaccinated, by transmission). The other examples are MAID even in the absence of a terminal dying state, and abortions which every woman has a right to in Canada (with all the scientific evidence we have to date indicating that the fetus does not have 'individual consciousness', but is just a part of the mother's body).

Supplementing Revision Challenge - Bob Armstrong Post # 259 - 23/8/20 (As Participant)

I have always believed Libertarians felt an individual was entitled to do self-harm, under their view of "Freedom". This is why I had independently, as a Participant, originally included a Statement on this when drafting our original Statement # 3. And, I am satisfied with Dilip's proposed Revision of Statement # 3.

However I am not in agreement with part of Dilip's reasons for challenge.

I specifically claim that "a young healthy person should take modRNA vaccines, if necessary to ward off/minimize intensity of a particular illness". But I do agree that they have the freedom not to be forced into taking them.......however.........they may then suffer personal negative consequences due to the need to protect society at large (They may become sick and be a possible transmitter to those who are still vulnerable [No immunity at that point]).

I agree with Dilip's position on MAID.

I agree with abortion, but I reserve judgment on Dilip's assertion that from conception to birth, "the fetus does not have 'individual consciousness', but is just a part of the mother's body".

Processing: Support for the existing Statement must be posted by the deadline of Sunday, 23/8/27 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Similarly for anyone else "supplementing" the Challenge. Otherwise the Statement will be revised as requested.

Bob A (As Participant).

a young healthy person should take modRNA vaccines, if necessary to ward off/minimize intensity of a particular illness".

Sadly, the data shows that they have failed here as well and in fact, the risks of adverse events far outweigh even the purported benefits preventing the
progression of disease. The fact is that in Israeli data for those under 50 there were ZERO COVID deaths pre roll out of the jabs

The risk of COVID progressing in younger people and killing them is statically zero. Cheap repurposed drugs were deliberately suppressed and continue to be
so that all roads led to lucrative mass vaccination. Since the vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission they are simply another therapeutic and one that was a massive failure. Who are you Bob to tell people what therapeutic people chose? You want to take a dangerous injection before any safety profile has been established that is up to you, Kindly stop pontificating about the jabs purported benefits when you have no clue what you are talking about.

This is a heavily referenced paper by a working group of us in our c19 forum published in 2022 when the variants were much more virulent about COVID and young, healthy people

https://earlycovidcare.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Early-Child-Treatment.pdf

Abstract During the past 19 months the global spread of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, Coronavirus2 (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19) has led to acute hospitalizations and death in primarily high-risk elderly and younger age groups who often present with comorbidities associated with increased risk. Otherwise, the virus is largely self-limiting in those infected outside of high-risk groups. Presently, the global community is confronting a predominant Delta variant of the virus, distinct from the initial variants, highly contagious and less virulent. The good news for high-risk populations is that early drug treatment (sequenced multi-drug treatment/SMDT) for all variants, has been shown to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death by as much as 85%. This paper is a combination of scientific research including clinical expert opinion of front-line doctors treating patients with COVID-19 and focuses on early treatments in children. The authors however, in support of the scientific literature recognize the risk of severe illness or death in the pediatric population is significantly low (statistical zero). Outlined are some of the key issues and pathophysiological principles that relate to the pediatric population with early infection. Therapeutic approaches based on these principles include 1) reduction of reinoculation, 2) combination antiviral anti-infective ‘repurposed’ therapy, 3) immunomodulation via oral/inhaled corticosteroids, 4) antiplatelet/antithrombotic/anticlotting therapy, and 5) administration of oxygen, monitoring, and telemedicine as needed. The key message is that as with adults, high-risk persons of any age, including the pediatric population, should not be left in a ‘wait-and-see’ mode whereby there is the potential for clinical decline; this, while effective, affordable, accessible, and safe treatments exist that could be administered in the pre-hospital phase. This paper should not in any way be taken as an indication or endorsement of elevated COVID-19 risk to pediatric populations, but rather as a proactive position in the rare instance a young child requires treatment. Future comparative effectiveness research comprised of high-quality and trustworthy observational study research and randomized controlled trials (especially study involving multiple therapeutic combinations/SMDT) will undoubtedly refine and clarify our clinical observations.

So why should a young healthy person subject themselves to a nonsterilizing vaccine to prevent symptoms from progressing (they don't) and subject themselves to 2%- 3% chance of myocarditis as a side effect (irreparable damage to the aorta). Frankly, no age group should take this poison when cheap repurposed drugs
and nutraceuticals with established safety profiles reduce the progression of this disease by 85% among immunocompromised and high-risk groups (elderly).


The risk of Myocarditis in COVID Infected people only is no different than the general population
a giant Israeli study by Tuvali et al found, among 197,000, NO increased incidence among Covid-19 infected.
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/8/2219

Mansanguan et al looked at 301 teen hearts both before and after Pfizer vaccination in a study in THailand. And found a rate of myopericarditis of 2.3%.

https://www.mdpi.com/2414-6366/7/8/196


So did Switzerland: Christian Mueller and colleagues from Basel looked at 777 healthcare workers pre- and post-Pfizer and found a significant troponin rise, signaling myocarditis, in 2.8% – this time, mostly among young and middle aged women.

If in Ontario, your Doctor tells you that your heart damage was caused by the jab they risk losing their license by the fascist Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons.

https://drtrozzi.org/2023/08/17/4-do...e-did-and-why/

[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 & Update




[Part I of 2 parts]

1. Statistics

Week # 5 (23/8/14 – 23/8/20 - 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.............(4wks.)............Responses/Day....Resp./Day......... (4 wks.).

…76.........................46.......................32..........................10......................7........................5

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's Stats took a substantial leap over those of the prior week, and are way ahead of the year to date.

The stats confirm that with more posts, our viewership has jumped, and that CT'ers are becoming aware that this issue in human life dwarfs even the issues of Negative Climate Change, and the past COVID-19 pandemic. We have a fast-growing, core group of CT'ers now following this thread, which had somewhat languished in the early stages.

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”)?

2. 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.

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.

3. The Anti-NWO/GR Position

The Time Line

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.

But there are others, including myself, who assert that already a covert group of much influence is directing government law and policy, in nations across the globe, and incrementally implementing the pieces of an agenda for an eventual 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”.

4. 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.

5. The “Conversation Format” Protocol

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

1. If there is no proposed revision of a Statement put forward as a "Commonly-Held" Statement, nor objection, within one week, then the Statement is considered "commonly-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).

2. If the Statement is challenged, with reasons, then the proposer of the Statement, and any others supporting the Statement must raise a defense, with reasons. Of course, it is also open to those supporting the Challenge to comment and “supplement” the Challenge.

3. 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".

6. Commonly Accepted Statements re Human Self-Governance (NWO/GR)

A. Statements

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 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong - Post # 198 - 23/8/16)

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.

Processing - no Challenge to date; deadline: Wed., 23/8/23 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

B. Processing Periods

1. If there are no challenges, then the Statement is “generally accepted” after one week.

2. The deadline for discussion of a Challenge will normally be one week after there is the first Defense of the Challenge.

[See Part II below]

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Bob Armstrong]

Human Self-Government (Continued)

[Part II of 2; see Part I above]

Appendix A

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians 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 # 1

Governments at all levels pass too many laws. Many are more restrictive than necessary, and some are just unnecessary. This unduly restrains the freedom of the individual, which is the paramount concern of society.

Statement in Opposition to Libertarian positions in Statements # 1 - # 6

Part 1:
There is no such thing as universal common-sense. Since a common-sense interpretation of the Natural Law ("do no harm to others, except in fair competition") is always subject to personal bias as to what exactly common-sense IS, there can be no consistent and irrefutable, indisputable interpretation of the Natural Law. Consequently, any attempt at one-size-fits-all Libertarianism will lead to alienation / protests / violence / overthrow of the system. Even the vaunted Judges and Police will be at each other's throats, because they have differing views of common-sense. This is the nature of humanity as evidenced throughout human history."

Part 2:
"There is no such thing as a universal definition of "fair competition". Therefore even where common-sense is not in dispute (if that could ever be the case, which Part 1 disputes), still disputes will inevitably arise over what constitutes exceptions under the Fair Competition clause. Lawyers will endlessly argue about possible exceptions, which current legal systems try to encapsulate under the living, evolving system of laws and sub-laws, which Natural Law counter-intuitively sets out to abolish.

Summary Statement:
Therefore, the very idea of a single one-size-fits-all Natural Law is illogical and is doomed to failure.

Processing: One week for any comments on this Opposition Statement; deadline: Sunday, Aug. 27 @ 11:59 PM EDT

Statement # 2

The main problem in current society is the "absolute enforcement" of law (Zero tolerance), even when such enforcement is illogical. An example might be giving a citizen a traffic ticket for going through a Stop Sign at midnight when no other pedestrian or vehicle is in sight. The laws are to be honoured in "spirit", though not always in the "letter".

Processing: See re Statement # 1

Statement # 3

The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Processing:

a. Revision 1 proposed (Post # 174 - 23/8/13); Supporting Post for original Statement; Proposed Revision 1 dismissed.
b.Revision 2 proposed;Support for Revision 2; Deadline for Challenge: Sat., 23/8/26 @ 11:59 PM EDT
c. Opposition Statement Deadline: See re Statement # 1.

Statement # 4

The Natural Law operates to bring common sense to law enforcement and to maximize the Freedom of the Individual. Thus, in certain circumstances (As in the traffic example above), the Natural Law overrides the actual relevant law, to provide an exception to the following of the law.

Processing: See re Statement # 1

Statement # 5

Those in society charged with enforcement of law (Such as the police), have discretion to recognize the operation of the Natural Law in certain circumstances, and treat the conduct of the individual as not illegal. Thus they will not lay any charge against the individual.

Processing: See re Statement # 1

Statement # 6

Where, by the conduct of the individual, someone breaks a law, and the Natural Law does not apply (There has been harm to another/society), the police/government can lay a charge and bring the individual before the court.

Processing: See re Statement # 1

Statement # 7

The court shall verify the breaking of the law, and impose a penalty. Penalties should usually involve a "Compensation Payment" of some kind to the harmed individual/society at large. This will assist in deterring actions in society that are harmful to others/society.

Statement # 8 (Proposed by Pargat Perrer - see Note below)

Libertarianism will employ 24/7 digital surveillance of every citizen in public spaces, including not just video but audio as well. This will help Natural Law enforcement to have the facts necessary to make discretionary decisions on whether to lay charges for breach of the Natural Law or other laws. It will also provide needed evidence for court hearings, where the issue is whether the Natural Law provided an exemption for non-compliance. This is seen as a necessary over-ride of the citizen's right of privacy and freedom from surveillance.

[Note: Group secretary attempted to extract Statement # 8 from the Post # 218 (23/8/18) of Pargat Perrer. Pargat has not suggested any revision to date.]

Processing:

a. Inaccuracy Challenge: No formal "Inaccuracy Challenge" to date that this is not an accurate Statement of Libertarian Policy; no “Opposition Challenge” that Statement untenable ; some postings indicating disagreements of some kinds, but not clear what is being challenged; Deadline for Challenge as not Libertarian policy: Fri., 23/8/25 @ 11:59 PM EDT; as to “Opposition Challenge” – always open to be made.

b. Revision Challenge: Dilip Panjwani – Post # Post # x, 23/8/?

Libertarianism will employ 24/7 digital surveillance of every citizen in public spaces, including not just video but audio as well. This will help Natural Law enforcement to have the facts necessary to make discretionary decisions on whether to lay charges for breach of the Natural Law or other laws. It will also provide needed evidence for court hearings, where the issue is whether the Natural Law provided an exemption for non-compliance. This is seen as a necessary over-ride of the citizen's right of privacy and freedom from surveillance for the purpose of justice and order.

[Secretary attempt to formalize Dilip's post previously seen; he can revise as necessary.]

Challenge: Added to the last sentence: "for the purpose of justice and order". It is important to give the reason rights are being over-ridden.

Processing: The proposed revision has one week to be challenged as not Libertarian policy; deadline: [Cannot locate Post] Setting Sunday, Aug. 27 @ 11:59 PM EDT.


Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians 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 # 3

The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Proposed Revision:

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one does something which even the vast majority thinks is harming him/herself and illogical, one is free to do so.

[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Dilip and his Revised Statement # 3; Dilip has agreed with the Secretary's version (Post # 256 - 23/8/19)

Challenge (Proposed Revision) (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Dilip Panjwani, Post # 249 - 23/8/19

Sid and Neal and IM O'Donnell may well be absolutely right, though in the minority, that a young healthy person should not take modRNA vaccines... and no one has the right to force them to do so. (We know that it is very very unlikely that an unvaccinated person can harm someone who is already vaccinated, by transmission). The other examples are MAID even in the absence of a terminal dying state, and abortions which every woman has a right to in Canada (with all the scientific evidence we have to date indicating that the fetus does not have 'individual consciousness', but is just a part of the mother's body).

Supplementing Revision Challenge - Bob Armstrong Post # 259 - 23/8/20 (As Participant)

I have always believed Libertarians felt an individual was entitled to do self-harm, under their view of "Freedom". This is why I had independently, as a Participant, originally included a Statement on this when drafting our original Statement # 3. And, I am satisfied with Dilip's proposed Revision of Statement # 3.

Processing: After one week, no other CT'er has come forward to oppose this revision of Statement # 3. In fact, one CT'er came forward to supplement the Challenge.

Conclusion: Statement # 3 is revised as proposed. It joins the list of generally accepted statements re Libertarianism.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)