Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Tom O'Donnell]

Unelected bureaucrats in the EU are making noises about the elections in Sweden and Italy, as well as about the government of Hungary. Globalists don't like governments who act in the best interests of their citizens.

Meanwhile, Trudeau and his cronies talk about the Great Reset and how we will all own nothing and be happy. Sure, the super-rich might not technically own anything under this new system, and instead have controlling interests in holding companies that own stuff which they themselves use.

Covid was a great cover for trying to implement authoritarian actions under the pretext of protecting us. It was a test to see how many people will just silently consent to having their liberties stripped away. Sadly, many people seem almost happy to surrender them.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Sid:

There is a proposition:

A covert Elite is in the process of establishing what they call "The New World Order (NWO)". The highest government official to mention this publicly was USA President George Bush Sr., on only one occasion many years ago. Otherwise there is almost total silence from up high on this question. This strategy will result in a one-world government, where all the planet will become subjects of this "Government". This government will be authoritarian.

From your posts, I assume that you believe this to be proposition to be true, and that the NWO is now in the process of being implemented?

Do you see the World Economic Forum as a step in this process of implementing this NWO?

I'm also very interested in the views of other CT'ers on this issue.

I believe it to be one of the most critical human issues after climate change (Sorry Sid & Dilip).

Bob A (T-S/P)

[Sid Belzberg]

I have not read Atlas Shrugged, Fountainhead, nor any of her other writings. I have seen interviews and commentary on such, and nothing so far has given me a favourable impression of Libertarianism. Numerous discussions including your own comments on this thread, come across as cult like platitudes and double speak. I guess I just don't get it. Perhaps I will watch Atlas Shrugged movie one of these days out of sheer curiosity.

But, perhaps we can get back to the discussion of climate change in time for COP27.

And you expect me to believe anything the WEF has to say? If they lied about Covid, masks, and vaccines, what makes you think they're telling the truth about CO2, nitrogen fertilizers and "green technology"? You won't even debate the facts I have posted on this subject because, according to you, "the science is settled" Do you have any idea how moronic that statement is? Science is never "settled," period! The only thing that has "settled" is the pure unadulterated bullshit of the WEF.

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob G.,
If you are interested in learning about the philosophy of Libertarianism, as you had once indicated, you need to read (or re-read if have already read once) some of Ayn Rand's novels and treatises.

I have not read Atlas Shrugged, Fountainhead, nor any of her other writings. I have seen interviews and commentary on such, and nothing so far has given me a favourable impression of Libertarianism. Numerous discussions including your own comments on this thread, come across as cult like platitudes and double speak. I guess I just don't get it. Perhaps I will watch Atlas Shrugged movie one of these days out of sheer curiosity.

But, perhaps we can get back to the discussion of climate change in time for COP27.

[Neil Frarey]

Dilip, thanks you sooo much for stirring such early learning of mine when in my late teens and into my early twenties!

I lived and breathed her (Ayn Rand) writings! Atlas Shrugged yes, but far more ... The Fountainhead ... such a profound influence.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Bob G.,
If you are interested in learning about the philosophy of Libertarianism, as you had once indicated, you need to read (or re-read if have already read once) some of Ayn Rand's novels and treatises.She calls Libertarianism 'the unknown ideal', and distinguishes it from the capitalism which is 'known'. When she speaks of true, moral capitalism, she is speaking of Libertarianism.

From aynrand.org :

Readers of her novel 'Atlas Shrugged' are struck by the moral fibre of Ayn Rand’s defense of business and capitalism. She does not regard capitalism as an amoral or immoral means to some “common good” — as do most of its alleged defenders — but as a profoundly moral social system.

Capitalism, Rand argues, is not today’s system, with its mixture of freedom and government controls, but a social system in which the government is exclusively devoted to the protection of individual rights, including property rights — one in which there exists absolutely no government intervention in the economy

Her collection of essays on the philosophy of capitalism: the basic truths and principles that make capitalism the only moral and practical social system — the only system consistent with man’s nature and the requirements of his life — the only one that enables each individual to reach his full, glorious potential.

Her treatises answer the questions of: Does capitalism lead to depressions, monopolies, child labor or war? Why is big business so hated? Why have conservatives failed to stop the growth of the state? Is religion compatible with capitalism? Is government regulation the solution to economic problems or their cause? What is freedom and what kind of government does it require? Is capitalism moral?

What Rand advocates is: Follow reason, not whims or faith.

Writes Rand: we “seek a noble vision of man’s nature and of life’s potential.”
Rand’s philosophy is that vision.

In Rand’s philosophy, reality is not to be rewritten or escaped, but, solemnly and proudly, faced. One of her favorite sayings is Francis Bacon’s: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”

Reality — that which exists — has no alternatives, no competitors, nothing “transcending” it. To embrace existence is to reject all notions of the supernatural and the mystical, including God.

[Sid Belzberg]

Yes we are.... before you realize it, we shall have turned ourselves into a Venezuela, where everyone wanted everything for free (and the government had nothing left to give them as nobody earned anything to pay taxes from), or a Russia, where everyone is poor except the presidents' friends (only till they get thrown out of a hotel window)...

Schwab Shot 2022-09-25 at 5.03.21 PM.png

[Dilip Panjwani]

I believe we are dangerously close to a tipping point.[/FONT][/FONT]

Yes we are.... before you realize it, we shall have turned ourselves into a Venezuela, where everyone wanted everything for free (and the government had nothing left to give them as nobody earned anything to pay taxes from), or a Russia, where everyone is poor except the presidents' friends (only till they get thrown out of a hotel window)...

[Tom O'Donnell]

It's okay to steal from people when they have a lot and give it to other people because the majority wants to. This is an example of why direct democracy is bad at large-scale levels.

[Bob Gillanders]

Is it friendly and civil (or is it simply obnoxious) to advocate big-time robbery (aka direct taxation) from individuals who manage to build a small fortune with foresight, hard work and smartness?

Dilip,

You and I have a vastly different perspectives on taxation. I see taxation as the vehicle whereby a civilized democratic society can pool resources to achieve lofty goals. Lofty goals may include feeding the poor, providing shelter & health care, medical research, space exploration, police, fire departments, courts or anything to enrich the common good. If taxation is considered a burden, then something has gone wrong.

Ideally everyone should view paying their taxes as their contribution to society for the betterment of all. Yes, I know, I can hear you all laughing. What is this Bob G guy smoking? And where can I get some? Now I did say ideally, so that is the utopia we should strive for, right? Why not?

All political and/or economic systems have both strengths and weaknesses. If you believe your preferred system is perfect, you are either willfully blind or so fearful of the alternatives, that you have stuck your head in the internet (“sand”) looking for validation. Step away from the keyboard, go outside and get some fresh air.

One flaw in the capitalist system is the extreme unequitable distribution of income and the inevitable extreme wealth accumulation over time. I am not talking about a reasonable range resulting from market forces, which are celebrated by capitalists, but the unhealthy gap produced in recent decades.

My proposed billionaire wealth tax (100% on wealth exceeding 1 billion) effectively caps individual wealth at $1 billion. Seriously, who needs more than a billion dollars? Can we agree that extreme wealth inequality harbours societal harm and risks civilization collapse? I didn’t think so.

Just like climate change, I believe we are dangerously close to a tipping point.

[Neil Frarey]

Bill Gates is also the single largest owner of private farmland in America.

Hunger has become an instrument of war.

Food is weapon for manipulation.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Sid,
If only we had a government sincerely devoted to enforcement of justice for all... rather than waste time and money and energy on getting involved in a myriad of woke / socialistic pursuits...!!!
D

[Sid Belzberg]

https://www.bitchute.com/video/lLGXsZbXy66d/

The reason I bring up Bill Gates and this mini-documentary about him is that he is heavily involved in the two greatest shams of the 20th and
21st century.
1) He organized event 201 ay John Hopkins University in October 2019 preceding the shamdemic where they simulated the
rehearsal in the event that Sarscov2 is released.
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity....ises/event201/
2) This well-organized act of bioterrorism was years in the planning. Here is an interesting debate about this.
https://2ndsmartestguyintheworld.sub...ovid-19-debate

3) Here is the following list of lies we have been subjected to

Screen Shot 2022-09-18 at 9.27.27 PM.png
3) Now that we are experiencing a true biologic catastrophe, this same group is promoting the great climate scare campaign as a new means of locking us down
and starving us to death by not allowing farmers to use fertilizer that is necessary to grow crops. The name of the game is depopulation with the elite having those that survive the culling as slaves that "will own nothing and be happy."
4) The fact is Carbon dioxide in air rose by 1 molecule in 10,000, in 2 centuries. This is almost entirely due to the natural world. Measures of a human component show it is less than 3 per cent, in 2 centuries. The facts show CO2 is in long-term decline, and is the real greatest threat to life on earth.
Carbon dioxide is the backbone of the false narrative on global warming and climate catastrophe. It has been hijacked and presented as toxic and damaging. In turn, this opens the door to blaming humans, and also creating a future scenario.

3 parts per 10000t 2022-09-24 at 5.42.32 PM.png


Screen Shot 2022-09-24 at 5.42.51 PM.png

[Sid Belzberg]

The underlying question is: did they become billionaires wholly or in part by employing 'the art of the steal' (in which case the government can get more by penalizing them than by taxing them) or whether they enabled the economy to grow by trillions and kept a small portion of it as their profit, in which case we should thank them, rather than rob them with direct taxes...
Interesting to know that Bob G. and you would not mind reducing taxes on millionaires (sub-billionaires)...especially if the government would need less income (e.g. by not having the PM, with his wife and several of his pals go to UK to sing the Bohemian rhapsody, at taxpayers' expense, but instead have the Governor General alone go there economy class, for one day to pay respects to our monarch who passed away, and return back by the evening flight...)

https://www.bitchute.com/video/lLGXsZbXy66d/

[Dilip Panjwani]

Governance specifically directed at economics isn't about being friendly or civil, but about ensuring the long-term health of the economy.

As you recall Dilip, Bob G's taxation idea is to tax net wealth over $1 billion at extremely high rates, close to or even equal to 100%. So Bob G's definition of "small fortune" is $1 Billion.

What is your definition, Dilip? You have to define your terms.

And I for one do believe this idea would make for a healthier economy. Dilip, in post #767 of this thread, you complained that "the common man/woman all over the world is suffering much more from the few climate-friendly steps various governments have already taken". So presumably you care about the "common" men and women.

You also talk about individuals being able to build a small fortune. So you must care about those who are still in the process of doing that, and whose net worth now is significantly less that $1 Billion.

So it seems to me, logically, that you should support Bob G.'s idea, because more of the tax burden is at the top end of the scale, where small fortunes have already been made, This could make it possible for those who are still building their small fortune -- the people you seem to care about, Dilip (LOL because most of us know better who you really care about) -- to be more successful, because they are shouldering less of the tax burden. This does assume, of course, that Bob G's idea, once implemented, would reduce some taxes on the lower end of the income and wealth scale. I'm assuming Bob G's idea would include that.

So would you, Dilip, rather have say
- 100 people worth over say $10 billion and paying virtually nothin in taxes, and 37 million people paying half their annual income in taxes,
or
- say 2,000 people worth over $1 billion and paying substantial taxes on their wealth beyond that figure and still 37 million people paying SUBSTANTIALLY LESS in taxes?

If you prefer the 2nd option, which you should, then you should be in favor of Bob G's taxation idea.

The underlying question is: did they become billionaires wholly or in part by employing 'the art of the steal' (in which case the government can get more by penalizing them than by taxing them) or whether they enabled the economy to grow by trillions and kept a small portion of it as their profit, in which case we should thank them, rather than rob them with direct taxes...
Interesting to know that Bob G. and you would not mind reducing taxes on millionaires (sub-billionaires)...especially if the government would need less income (e.g. by not having the PM, with his wife and several of his pals go to UK to sing the Bohemian rhapsody, at taxpayers' expense, but instead have the Governor General alone go there economy class, for one day to pay respects to our monarch who passed away, and return back by the evening flight...)