Collapse of Civilization

[Bob Armstrong]

The Widening Wealth/Income Gap - an indicia of Collapse of Civilization?

Americas - USA

"Billionaire Tax Rests on a Disputed $14,729 Refund at the Supreme Court

• Progressives see tax on assets as easing deficit, inequality
• Justices will likely rule in midst of presidential campaign"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...mpaign=markets

Bob A

[Sid Belzberg]

And how nice of you to admit that Canadian federal government should be doing more to eliminate hunger in Canada, that is a very SOCIALIST point of view.

Oh, that must bite huh? Well then if you want to shift YOUR position, go ahead and urge FOR PROFIT COPRORATIONS in Canada to do more to fight hunger in Canada! LOL

I'll wait for it.... LOL






Commendations on your weight loss and work to fight obesity.

If only you could see that widespread obesity, among other societal ills, is encouraged by FOR PROFIT CORPORATIONS (Coke, Pepsi, Frito Lay, etc etc etc) and that that is where your fight against obesity, among other societal ills, really lies....

As originally stated, this large swath of Canadians being fed is no thanks to the Federal government. You stated that the private sector would never undertake programs like SNAP, but indeed, that is what was achieved in Canada, where our genocidal government could not be relied upon to help. Communism/socialism ruins everything, and historically it always has. You pointed out the SNAP program in the US, which is a disaster. They do not attempt to limit what the food stamps can purchase, and yes, it includes potato chips, sugared drinks, etc. Also, fraud has been rife in this program, as pointed out earlier.

So the struggle here is not left versus right but good versus evil. What we have seen in the last century is a partnership between corporations and Governments and unelected Non-Governmental Organizations.
The result is a massively corrupted authoritarian medical-political complex with undo influence wielded through NGOs. Historically I have never heard of a government that does a good job in much of anything other than murdering its own citizens abusing their trust, and finding ingenious ways to siphon off money for themselves.

[Sid Belzberg]

Globalists in the power elite—working through the United Nations—are waging war against property rights, gun rights and capitalism in order to usher in a Marxist World Order. This war is known as “Agenda 21”.

Considered a “conspiracy theory” by the mainstream media and other apologists of globalisation, the flagship term for Agenda 21—”sustainable development”—crops up in thousands of federal, state and local government laws, regulations, policies and documents. So is Agenda 21 really just a “theory”?

The UN says “sustainable development” is simply the “environmental movement” reconfiguring the planet into a safe, green world. Others maintain it’s the forced inventory and control of all land, water, minerals, plants, animals, building projects and human beings on the planet. In other words, a blueprint for what many fear could morph into a totalitarian world government. So what’s the real agenda behind Agenda 21?

[Bob Armstrong]

Pretty well put Sid (I've edited a bit):

New World Order/Great Reset/Agenda 21 (By Sid - correct where in error)

Alleged - The UN says “sustainable development” is simply the “environmental movement” re-configuring the planet into a safe, green world.

Reality (NOT a "conspiracy theory") - Globalists in the power elite—working through the United Nations—are waging war against property rights, gun rights and capitalism, in order to usher in a Marxist World Order.The term ”sustainable development”—crops up in thousands of federal, state and local government laws, regulations, policies and documents, in many countries across the world. It’s the forced inventory and control of all land, water, minerals, plants, animals, building projects and human beings on the planet. In other words, a blueprint for what many fear could morph into a totalitarian world government.

My Revisions:

1. The "Higher Authority" - partly open; partly hidden - My term for those driving this new paradigm for Earth - it is generally benevolently-intentioned, though misguided.
2. Sid's view of "totalitarianism" & "Democratic Marxism" is quite flawed. Totalitarianism usually is used for a state under "Fascism", not some sort of "Socialism". His understanding of "Democratic Marxism" is minimal, and wrong.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

... understanding of "Democratic Marxism" is minimal, and wrong.

Bob A

This seems to apply to you, Bob A, despite your intense dedication to DM, as you fail to understand that when one knows that one's share of the common pie is not proportional to one's contribution in enlarging it, one's energies are directed towards 'fun' things for self and family, rather than sweating to create a bigger pie... and the common pie keeps on shrinking (in real terms, correcting for inflation) as happened in Allende's Chile...

[Bob Armstrong]

Life is balancing the "Sweat" with the "Fun"!

There is a saying: All work makes Jack a dull boy!

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

For Sid & Dilip (And others who don't know the difference between "Democratic Marxism" & "Old-style USSR Communism"):

Democratic Marxism

&

Government

(23/11/5)





A. 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

c. 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.

Statement # 12

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

Supporting Reason

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

[Secretarial Note: Statements # 1 - # 12 on Democratic Marxism have been endorsed as accurate by:

a. A group of about 250 members of a Fb group, The Democratic Marxist Global Forum (DMGF). They represent the partisan political spectrum, and the issue spectrum.

b. 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. 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.

3. 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.

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)

[Sid Belzberg]

Life is balancing the "Sweat" with the "Fun"!

There is a saying: All work makes Jack a dull boy!

Bob A

Sure and proposing only gain and no pain is a physical impossibility that has never worked.

[Sid Belzberg]

For Sid & Dilip (And others who don't know the difference between "Democratic Marxism" & "Old-style USSR Communism"):

Democratic Marxism

&

Government

(23/11/5)





A. 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

c. 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.

Statement # 12

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

Supporting Reason

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

[Secretarial Note: Statements # 1 - # 12 on Democratic Marxism have been endorsed as accurate by:

a. A group of about 250 members of a Fb group, The Democratic Marxist Global Forum (DMGF). They represent the partisan political spectrum, and the issue spectrum.

b. 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. 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.

3. 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.

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)

These are the same old promises made by Marxists in the past that never panned out. Remember that your beloved Allende was closely aligned with the USSR and met with them many times.



Dec 7, 1972 New York Times Archives: Salvadlorian President Travels to Moscow

MOSCOW, Dec. 6—President Salvador Allende Gossens of Chile started a three‐day visit to the Soviet Union today in an effort to elicit new financial and technical support for the embattled Chilean economy.

The President, a socialist, was welcomed by Soviet leaders on his arrival by air from Algiers two days after having charged in the United Nations General Assembly that his nation's economy was being strangled by a blockade led by United States corporations, banking interests and governmental agencies.

High Chilean planning, banking and foreign‐trade officials have preceded the President to Moscow, evidently conducting talks on the prospects of expanded aid and laying the groundwork for an agreement to be signed by Dr. Allende.

The visitor conferred with Leonid T. Brezhnev, the Soviet Communist party leader, and with President Nikolai V. Podgorny and Premier Aleksei N. Kosygin, who had met him at the airport.

At a Kremlin dinner Mr. Podgorny assured his guest that “you are not alone in your struggle” and presented the Soviet Union and its allies as champions of Latin America's efforts to “expel foreign monopolies, rebuild an outdated social structure and end economic backwardness.”

President Allende, in reply, said Soviet support was of particular significance at a time when Chile “is becoming a silent Vietnam, without the roar of planes and the bursts of grenades, but with the same feelings, as millions of Chileans experience an overt and concealed encirclement of their country.”

‘Before’ and ‘After’ Movies

Moscow television, which carried the 15‐minute airport ceremony live, had sought to put viewers in the mood by presenting a series of documentary films that appeared designed to portray Chile before and after Dr. Allende came to power in September, 1970, in a constitutional election at the head of a leftist coalition.

The “before” films focused on poverty, industrial unrest and police repression of leftist demonstrators. The “after” films focused on social reforms and on the new Government's campaign of nationalization of foreign companies. In the process viewers were also exposed to Santiago street scenes that conveyed a sense of prosperity and well‐being superior to anything in the Soviet Union.

Although Chile is about as far from the Soviet Union as anything can be on earth, President. Allende has been receiving strong public support from Moscow since coming to power, but it is still far from considering Chile a member of the Soviet‐led bloc of Communist nations.

Chile's economic difficulties derive in part from the nationalization last year of copper mines operated by Anaconda and Kennecott.

As one of the world's principal copper producers, Chile is heavily dependent on the marketing of copper, which represents three‐fourths of her exports. The marketing problems since nationalization and generally depressed prices have seriously weakened the prospects of Chilean growth.

As a result of a decline in United States aid and the reluctance of Washington‐based development banks to extend loans, Chile has become increasingly dependent on the Soviet Union for credits and technical aid.

Projects already under way include a deep‐sea fishing program and a plant for prefabricated housing. The Soviet Union is also under contract to build a lubricating‐oil factory and is studying construction of a fishing port.

Chile has also requested Soviet assistance for the nationalized copper industry, where production has declined in the confused reorganization that followed expropriation.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Life is balancing the "Sweat" with the "Fun"!

There is a saying: All work makes Jack a dull boy!

Bob A

All fun and no sweat makes Jack a begging pauper...
And Marxism hiding under the garb of democracy will also make your nation a begging pauper...

[Bob Armstrong]

Chile - 1970-3 - A "Socialist" Government - President Dr. Salvadore Allende

Chile did seek help from a USSR Communist Government. There was no alternative. USA and the West were trying to collapse the Chilean economy.

But Allende was not a "Communist". He ran 3 times for President as the "Socialist" he always was. His Unity Government included the USSR style Chilean Communist Party, but the Unity Government was in fact "Socialist", not 'Communist".

The style of the Chilean Unity Government is the closest an elected government has come to implementing what are now considered basic Democratic Marxist principles.

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Chile - 1970-3 - A "Socialist" Government - President Dr. Salvadore Allende

Chile did seek help from a USSR Communist Government. There was no alternative. USA and the West were trying to collapse the Chilean economy.

But Allende was not a "Communist". He ran 3 times for President as the "Socialist" he always was. His Unity Government included the USSR style Chilean Communist Party, but the Unity Government was in fact "Socialist", not 'Communist".

The style of the Chilean Unity Government is the closest an elected government has come to implementing what are now considered basic Democratic Marxist principles.

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

Bob, every Marxist pretends that "this time it will be different," but they are crypto-USSR-style thugs. That was not only his sole trip to the USSR. He was closely involved with them from the start. And the USA was not going to have another Cuba on their doorstep. Chile was a proxy of the USSR period. Maybe instead of spreading propaganda, you should do your due diligence and study the true history of Allende. He was another USSR thug!
Yes, stealing what is not yours (copper mines) under the blanket of "nationalization" has disastrous consequences, and so it should.
Good luck with the abolition of private property no wonder there is only one DM in the world, YOU!

[Bob Armstrong]

'Tis true I fear - I am the one currently writing DM policy, to my knowledge.

I imagine I am quite under the radar, and if others are also beavering away on this new kind of socialism, they have not so advised me.

Majority views come out of minority views.


Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

'Tis true I fear - I am the one currently writing DM policy, to my knowledge.

I imagine I am quite under the radar, and if others are also beavering away on this new kind of socialism, they have not so advised me.

Majority views come out of minority views.


Bob A

Hey Bob A, if the NDP were to adopt full scale Marxism in its desires, would you say that the Canadian system fits your vision of a DM society?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hey Bob A, if the NDP were to adopt full scale Marxism in its desires, would you say that the Canadian system fits your vision of a DM society?

Bob has responded in a way to this under the NWO thread... he is however very careful not to admit that even if the NDP turns Marxist, making Canada eligible for DM, the chances of Canadians embracing DM are zero in the foreseeable future: Vive Le Canada!!