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

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid Belzberg's Videos

Sid: "By the way, have you [Bob A] watched the videos I have posted yet?" - Post # 167 - 23/8/12



Sid has asked that I try to get through a number (I think there were two he was most concerned that I watch) of the longer videos he had posted on what he terms "The Great Reset" [Not easy for me due to a consequence of my Bi-Polar Disorder].

The Great Reset Lecture (Video)

I have both watched and reviewed the one video he wanted me to watch, The Great Reset lecture (37 min., 54 sec.): Post # 157 - 23/8/12. I confirmed this to him again in my Post # 169 - 23/8/13.

The Great Awakening (Movie)

I did ask if one of the other videos he wanted me to watch was a full length movie (2 hr. 49 min.) called the Great Awakening. In my Post # 169, I posted:

Is this the second one you are referring to?

The Great Reset From the Religious Point of View

A. Full Movie – The Great Awakening (From Sid Belzberg – dubbed Plandemic 3)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrbUWqOotw0


B. 8 key moments in another version:

a. Introduction 0:00

b. Spiritual Decline 0:54

c. The Awakening 05:24

d. Jonathan Edwards 11:05

e. Reverend John Whitfield 15:49

f. Controversy 19:28

g. The Dissenters 25:39

h The Sandy Creek Awakening 29:07

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vELS8e8hATk (Full Movie)

Sid did not answer me on this one, and whether he felt it was a critical one I watch (This would not be easy - whew).

Other New World Order/Great Reset Videos

I have in my notes that Sid specified two videos of particular importance. If the second is not the one referred to above, then I am uncertain which one was the second one. If there is another video Sid feels is critical for me to watch, would he mind again posting the link.

My Approach

I am not dodging here or being lazy, as he has sometimes suggested. I do have a serious medical restriction which makes both my reading, or viewing, long length materials quite challenging. I must do short sittings over a long period of time for completion, and I must sometimes just skim or jump ahead if I feel I have the gist.

But I can do both .........just takes a somewhat long time.

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

Bob, First I am sorry to hear of your health issue that prevents you from focusing properly over extended periods of time. Second, the movies you have posted here have nothing whatsoever to do with the movies I requested you view.
Here are the correct movies

1) https://plandemicseries.com/watch-th...akening-movie/

2) More important is this relatively short movie by far left Democrat Naomi Wolf. (fighting tyranny sometimes results in strange alliances)
https://rumble.com/v2hpryu-naomi-wol...documents.html

[Bob Armstrong]

Thanks Dilip - now corrected! Does this make it clearer?:

Statement # 6

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

It has been most helpful to the rest of us to have teased out these Statements on your political philosophy....thanks for your guidance.

Also, the Post # 202 (23/8/17) seemed so good, I've re-posted it [Edited a bit] on my Fb site, The REAL News (https://www.facebook.com/bob.armstrong.9235). I have challenged my "THE Think Tank" to propose opposing Statements there!

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Libertarianism

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarian CT'ers Here Concerning Human Self-Government



Wikipedia:

The Libertarian Party is a political party in the United States that promotes civil liberties, non-interventionism, laissez-faire capitalism, and limiting the size and scope of government. Wikipedia

Founder: David Nolan

Founded: December 11, 1971, Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States

Headquarters: Alexandria, Virginia, United States

Processing - Phase I - Developing the Statements - now completed (Subject to Statement # 3)

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 # 2

But 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".

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Processing - Phase II - Opposing Libertarian Positions

[Note: As Group Secretary, I set out that this would be the second phase of dealing with the Libertarian positions: Post # 149 - 23/8/9:
"Note: We are not yet dealing with those who fundamentally oppose a Libertarian position. This will come in Phase Two of the processing of these Statements."

Opposition to a Particular Statement

We would ask that the opposer post first the Libertarian Statement s/he is opposing with its number. Then post an executive summary "Statement in Opposition". Then post your "Support" for Your opposing Statement and why the Libertarian position is not correct.

Please make a separate post for each Libertarian Statement you are opposing.......this way others opposed to this same Statement can make reference to the prior opposition post numbers re this particular Statement. It will lessen possible confusion.

The floor is yours CT'ers! Take a shot!

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

Hi Bob,
There seems to be a typo in your Statement #6, and you may want to correct that...thanks.

[Bob Armstrong]

Libertarianism

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarian CT'ers Here Concerning Human Self-Government



Wikipedia:

The Libertarian Party is a political party in the United States that promotes civil liberties, non-interventionism, laissez-faire capitalism, and limiting the size and scope of government. Wikipedia

Founder: David Nolan

Founded: December 11, 1971, Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States

Headquarters: Alexandria, Virginia, United States

Processing - Phase I - Developing the Statements - now completed (Subject to Statement # 3)

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 # 2

But 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".

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)

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.

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.

Statement # 6

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

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.

Processing - Phase II - Opposing Libertarian Positions

[Note: As Group Secretary, I set out that this would be the second phase of dealing with the Libertarian positions: Post # 149 - 23/8/9:
"Note: We are not yet dealing with those who fundamentally oppose a Libertarian position. This will come in Phase Two of the processing of these Statements."

Opposition to a Particular Statement

We would ask that the opposer post first the Libertarian Statement s/he is opposing with its number. Then post an executive summary "Statement in Opposition". Then post your "Support" for Your opposing Statement and why the Libertarian position is not correct.

Please make a separate post for each Libertarian Statement you are opposing.......this way others opposed to this same Statement can make reference to the prior opposition post numbers re this particular Statement. It will lessen possible confusion.

The floor is yours CT'ers! Take a shot!

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Sid Belzberg's Videos

Sid: "By the way, have you [Bob A] watched the videos I have posted yet?" - Post # 167 - 23/8/12



Sid has asked that I try to get through a number (I think there were two he was most concerned that I watch) of the longer videos he had posted on what he terms "The Great Reset" [Not easy for me due to a consequence of my Bi-Polar Disorder].

The Great Reset Lecture (Video)

I have both watched and reviewed the one video he wanted me to watch, The Great Reset lecture (37 min., 54 sec.): Post # 157 - 23/8/12. I confirmed this to him again in my Post # 169 - 23/8/13.

The Great Awakening (Movie)

I did ask if one of the other videos he wanted me to watch was a full length movie (2 hr. 49 min.) called the Great Awakening. In my Post # 169, I posted:

Is this the second one you are referring to?

The Great Reset From the Religious Point of View

A. Full Movie – The Great Awakening (From Sid Belzberg – dubbed Plandemic 3)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrbUWqOotw0


B. 8 key moments in another version:

a. Introduction 0:00

b. Spiritual Decline 0:54

c. The Awakening 05:24

d. Jonathan Edwards 11:05

e. Reverend John Whitfield 15:49

f. Controversy 19:28

g. The Dissenters 25:39

h The Sandy Creek Awakening 29:07

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vELS8e8hATk (Full Movie)

Sid did not answer me on this one, and whether he felt it was a critical one I watch (This would not be easy - whew).

Other New World Order/Great Reset Videos

I have in my notes that Sid specified two videos of particular importance. If the second is not the one referred to above, then I am uncertain which one was the second one. If there is another video Sid feels is critical for me to watch, would he mind again posting the link.

My Approach

I am not dodging here or being lazy, as he has sometimes suggested. I do have a serious medical restriction which makes both my reading, or viewing, long length materials quite challenging. I must do short sittings over a long period of time for completion, and I must sometimes just skim or jump ahead if I feel I have the gist.

But I can do both .........just takes a somewhat long time.

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Bob Armstrong]

Libertarianism

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarian CT'ers Here Concerning Human Self-Government

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 # 2

But 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".

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Processing

No CT'er has come forward within one week to Challenge that a Statement is not an accurate Libertarian position (With the exception of Statement # 3 - revision proposed).

Conclusion

The 7 Statements are generally accepted by the Libertarian CT'ers in our group.

[Note: Statements are always open to Challenge that they do not accurately reflect the Libertarian policies. Rulings will be made on whether a Challenge is duplicative of a prior dismissed Challenge, and whether or not it will be allowed to be processed.]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by CT'ers Here Concerning Human Self-Government

Statement # 6

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

Processing

After one week, there have been no Challenges.

Conclusion

Statement # 6 is generally accepted, and joins the list of Statements.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by CT'ers Here Concerning Human Self-Government

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.

[Note: I have taken this Statement from the Fb Democratic Marxist Global Forum (https://www.facebook.com/groups/2045...ref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARB5MaP7fzlN9ItgmSkMWzv60Rd9mIxsQIkIgIa6_Guh2MGR6mV82GdH-IxgmiiVaJcZ-NLi7Cz46VX0nn78clmPjd-pttzlYPR9dmEubTBnBdnGohd0bl3Fy4k02cb3BVHNVOcfjANvEEUCRw6k1IZDDsZV6l9V1Id5_NomySGWmEpA3Inygttyrt3-jYH1m1M50W3d94tVElUVaZ-SrM-WZ4BkYEj0ZYF5Y5X2d7KRG_MQJtND8fXyDSkU0F1I4FVHkI_eoiyOazUgCRS0lmfetiENOGsaJPb6MfuHzQ92-u7gMI_E8888fus). They are processing it there, and I thought it was good, and likely generally acceptable here.]

Processing Protocol

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

2. The deadline for a Challenge is Wed., 23//8/23 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Bob A (As Participant)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Processing Protocol



Proposed Change in Protocol: Our CT'er group should make it mandatory that when a new Statement is proposed, it must be put forward with some supportive reasons (To date, we have not demanded this).

Reason: If there are supportive reasons given for the new Statement, someone with little knowledge of the issue will learn something about what the issue is about, and, maybe, some hints about how and where they can do their own research to confirm for themselves the Statement or to challenge the proposed Statement.

[This has come up already in the CT'er Negative Climate Change thread, which is using the same Statement Processing Protocol. The suggested change is in process there at the moment, and so far has not been opposed.]

Processing

I will give one week for the group to "oppose" this proposed protocol change (Deadline: Wednesday, Aug. 23 @ 11:59 PM EDT).

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism (DM)

Posts # 194 (Dilip Panjwani - 23/8/15) and # 195 (Sid Belzberg - 23/8/15) indicate the extent of the confusion between DM and "Old-Style USSR Communism".

As I have posted before, a good start for the unknowledgeable is the seminal work on DM called "The New Democratic Theory" by Kenneth A. Megill - 70/1/1 - Paperback on Amazon (Hardcover almost impossible to find). I read it before I got sick.......would have great trouble getting through it now...........can only really read somewhat long articles at a sitting.......I have some unusual consequences from my Bi-Polar Disorder. But the book is in layman's language......a relatively easy read.

Deadline for comments on my proposal for our group to produce a set of Statements generally accepted by DM, and DM supporting, CT'ers in our group: Sunday, Aug. 20 @ 11:59 PM EDT. (Post # 171 - 23/8/13).

Thereafter I will, as soon as I can, propose the first DM Statement.

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Democratic Marxism

There seems to be some public confusion between modern Democratic Marxism (DM), and Old-style USSR Communism (As currently practised in China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba etc.).

It may be worthwhile to make a list of Statements generally accepted by Democratic Marxists.

We did this for Libertarianism (Still in process) to clarify the posts of Libertarians who are part of our group. They will often refer, or confusingly refer, to the principles of Libertarianism in posting, and the list of Statements generally accepted by Libertarians has helped immensely to more clearly understand them (Dilip Panjwani is the main Libertarian poster; Sid Belzberg appears not to be a Libertarian, but seems comfortable with some Libertarian positions, and will post in support).

But before this, it may be important to draw to CT'ers attention the seminal work on DM called "The New Democratic Theory" - Kenneth A. Megill - 70/1/1 - Paperback on Amazon (Hardcover almost impossible to find). I will give a week to try to locate it and read it.

In one week I will put forward a Statement # 1 generally accepted by the Democratic Marxists in this CT'er group. Then we will open Statement # 1 to "Disagreement" (The Statement thought by others to counter the statement and which is actually the truth).

Is this thought to be helpful in our ongoing discussion of Human Self-Governance here?

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

There is no "public confusion." You stated that the abolition of private property is not a repugnant idea. The only difference is that you proposed that a few crumbs might be given to the workers instead of no private property. The so-called State "administers" everything else. You are in fact describing exactly the USSR comunisim and its satellite states.My wife grew up in Poland under this system and you have not articulated any differences whatsoever. You are as they say attempting to put " lipstick on a pig".

Is this thought to be helpful in our ongoing discussion of Human Self-Governance here?

In my opinion no, despite Dillips saying "yes" purely for entertainment value that I can understand. If you think you will
suck us in with the "this time it is different story" this is the wrong address and the wrong thread for that.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Democratic Marxism

There seems to be some public confusion between modern Democratic Marxism (DM), and Old-style USSR Communism (As currently practised in China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba etc.).

It may be worthwhile to make a list of Statements generally accepted by Democratic Marxists.

In one week I will put forward a Statement # 1 generally accepted by the Democratic Marxists in this CT'er group. Then we will open Statement # 1 to "Disagreement" (The Statement thought by others to counter the statement and which is actually the truth).

Is this thought to be helpful in our ongoing discussion of Human Self-Governance here?

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Yes, certainly.
Look forward to how you explain away the suffocating system as being good for us...

[Pargat Perrer]

Originally posted by Pargat Perrer

I thought you were just insane. This is much worse.

That is an extremely arrogant and vile post to make. The President of CFC, amongst many others, has had similar reactions to your posts. Can only hope Kerry Liles' demand to ban you will be heeded, soon.

Sid Belzberg often goes much farther in many of his posts, and you don't criticize him, in fact you pat him on the back because you generally agree with his opinions.

Instead of focusing on mundane matters like this, why don't you address the much-more-important data you have revealed that Libertarianism necessarily involves pervasive, invasive and 24/7 digital surveillance of all citizens? In addition to its "One Law Fits All" nonsense.

[Dilip Panjwani]

An Analysis of Government

By Anonymous

Americas - USA

Who Rules & Decides?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrstverI7QY

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

Nice video, Bob.

[Dilip Panjwani]

I thought you were just insane. This is much worse.

That is an extremely arrogant and vile post to make. The President of CFC, amongst many others, has had similar reactions to your posts. Can only hope Kerry Liles' demand to ban you will be heeded, soon.