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

[Dilip Panjwani]

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

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

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

[Peter McKillop]

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

Hi Sid: ....

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

[Sid Belzberg]

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

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

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

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

Overview



A. Statistics


Week # 9 (23/9/12 – 17 [7 days])

(Sometimes Adjusted for no. of days)

Weekly Stats:
.....................................................2023 Average..........................................................2023 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(9 wks.)............Responses/Day....Resp./Day......... (9 wks.).

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

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

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

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

B. The Anti-NWO/GR Position

Conspiracy Theory?

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

The Time Line

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

C. A Proposal (Possible; not Utopian)

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

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

D. The “Conversation Format” Protocol

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

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

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

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

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

E. NWO/GR Thread “Responses”

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

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

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

Note:

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

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

Bob A (Anti-NWO/As Participant)

[Bob Armstrong]

Definitional Clarity

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 3

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

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



Some Confusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Canadian Situation

What happens when this question is applied to Canada?

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

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

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

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

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

A Definitional Realignment

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

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

Democratic Marxist Global Institute

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

Recent Revision: 20/10/17 - Bob Armstrong

Most Recent Postings:

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

TRN/Bob: 23/9/19

CT/HS-G: 23/9/19

Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute - 2020

[Dilip Panjwani]

Definitional Clarity

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 3

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

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



Some Confusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Canadian Situation

What happens when this question is applied to Canada?

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

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

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

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

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

A Definitional Realignment

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

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

Democratic Marxist Global Institute

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

Recent Revision: 20/10/17 - Bob Armstrong

Most Recent Postings:

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

TRN/Bob: 23/9/19

CT/HS-G: 23/9/19

Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute - 2020

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

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

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

China - agreed

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

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

Bob A (DM'er)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

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

China - agreed

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

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

Bob A (DM'er)

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

[Sid Belzberg]

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

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

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

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

Some of the main points raised by the resolution included:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bob Armstrong]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob A

[Sid Belzberg]

AND NOT generally accepted by the majority of the scientists around the globe

False! The claims of 97% consensus have long ago been debunked as I outlined numerous times. The only :consensus" you have around
the world is WEF puppet politicians.

[Bob Armstrong]

The Sustainable Earth Project: A Collection of Villages



Below are posts from another CT Thread (On COVID-19); they are more properly dealt with here; Peter and I have agreed we'd move our conversation here (Others there object to coming here).

Post # 1 - Bob Armstrong - 23/9/17

If the Earth was all local political units (A collection of villages), then we could have direct democracy, eliminate representative democracy (Politicians), and government would be the secretariat for carrying out the will of the people.

It is not a pipe dream.......it just needs people to come forward and demand it.

Post # 2 - Peter McKillop - 23/9/17

If I'm understanding what it is you're proposing, I think it's unworkable and undesirable. If you have (tens of) thousands of self-governing villages, how would you ever deal efficiently with all of the disparities of geography and economic potential? How would you deal with funding/building the physical/legal infrastructure needed to support inter-village dealings like trade? How, for example, would you deal with poverty-stricken villages that have no prospects for improving themselves because all of their scarce resources are used up by their subsistence-level existence?

Post # 3 - Bob Armstrong - 23/9/20

Re Post of Peter McKillop above

1. Peter: "If I'm understanding what it is you're proposing, I think it's unworkable and undesirable."

Response

Peter, you understand perfectly what I am proposing! I hope to convince you that it is both "workable" and "desirable"!

2. Peter: "If you have (tens of) thousands of self-governing villages, how would you ever deal efficiently with all of the disparities of geography and economic potential?"

Response

a. Geographic Differences

There is no doubt that geography showers certain benefits on the residents. For example, if you are a village on the Mediterranean Sea, there are economic advantages to having a Port. Are there any advantages to being a village in the middle of the Sahara Desert? Dry Air may be one from the health point of view of some people.

But your point is totally sound.

The goal of the "Sustainable Earth Project" is that through "cooperation", and "altruism", villages will work hard not to "win", but to help other villages to be 'Sustainable", even if that may mean some inequality of trade. This new paradigm works only if ALL villages are "sustainable". And this may require that some villages are helped in some way by others (Sort of like Canadian Federal-Provincial transfer payments). The goal is that each village is unique and has something to offer, that will keep the residents happy to be a resident in their village. We cannot afford to have villages that just don't work.

b. Economic Potential Differences

Again disparity causes problems........yes it is wonderful that some villages will have much greater economic potential than others. And we want to exploit this to the maximum (Within the rules of sustainability). But it is not "us for ourselves" in the Sustainable Earth.....it is we (All Villages) must achieve some decent local civic quality of life....so there is going to have to be "bartering", and it may have to be "Subsidy Bartering".........one village can trade something the other needs, for what it needs, despite the disparity of value of what is being "traded".

This is truly a sticky wicket, as Peter points out.

Dilip has proposed thinking in terms of "regions of circles". So any village has a "circle of villages" around its borders. The most natural dynamic economically is for the village, and those in its first concentric circle, to enter into bi-lateral, and multi-lateral arrangements, so that all get what they need, and can accomplish tasks important to all, efficiently.

3. Peter: "How would you deal with funding/building the physical/legal infrastructure needed to support inter-village dealings like trade?"

Response

One could consider regional transportation as an "infrastructure" problem for a village to solve. This seems most amenable to cooperation - a village coalition to set up a regional transport authority for all of them in the first circle.

This is not so simple though..........we have circles overlaying circles in this paradigm.......But I believe that villages will be able to negotiate a workable, and desirable, solution to mass transit, where there is going to be decent service for all the residents of all villages in the "Coalition".

4. Peter: "How, for example, would you deal with poverty-stricken villages that have no prospects for improving themselves because all of their scarce resources are used up by their subsistence-level existence?"

Response

I think that the only partial, and substantial, solution to this is "Transfer Payments" to the "less sustainable on their own" villages. It may also be that some unsustainable villages will simply have to join with one or more bordering villages to achieve at least some basic level of sustainability, which then can be subsidized.


Invitation

Peter and I would be very interested in hearing the comments of other CT'ers in this group, as well, as to this discussion on "The Sustainable Earth Project: A Collection of Villages".

Peter & Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

NWO/GR Depopulation Strategy (Held by some here)

"The best current projections estimate a peak global population sometime soon — within the lifetimes of children alive today."

https://messaging-custom-newsletters...d396a4debfd6ce

Question

If the shrinking of the world's population is going to happen naturally, and very soon.........

Why should the "Higher Authority (My name for the covert/overt influencer coalition seeking a one-world government)" waste time and energy now "de-populating? It is not going to hurry things along much.....why not focus on other issues - this one is going to take care of itself naturally.

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Sid Belzberg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob A

So how the hell are we supposed to get a "Generally Accepted" statement IN OUR GROUP

Unless you are trying for a political campaign, "generally accepted statements" are of zero value in establishing the truth. Something you appear to have no
interest in, as is the case with your "benevolent' mass murderers of the WEF who push slow kill injectable bioweapons and climate alarmism and view people like you as useful idiots to pursue their crimes against humanity. "YOU WILL OWN NOTHING AND BE HAPPY"= "WE WILL OWN EVERYTHING AND BE VERY HAPPY"

https://twitter.com/goddeketal/status/1703884300591022295

[Bob Armstrong]

The Search for Truth

"And Pilate said to Jesus: "What is truth?"

Sid Belzberg - Post # 389 - 23/9/21

"Unless you are trying for a political campaign, "generally accepted statements" are of zero value in establishing the truth."

Response

Totally False!

Humans search for truth in groups (Most effective way). What they then find and call "TRUTH" is always "tentative/to date". The reason is that there is always new evidence surfacing that conflicts with the "Truth-at-the-Moment". So we always are ready in future to have it proven that one of our Truth Statements is FALSE/WRONG/Not an accurate description of reality.

The odds of getting it right initially depend on many factors - expertise on the topic in the group; time available to reach a conclusion; accuracy of research resources and sources; etc.

So any group working cooperatively have chances of getting at least some of their Statements to correspond to the Truth as we know it at the time.

We here are clearly an ordinary Joe group.....mix of people, knowledge, interest in the topic, etc.

Yet.........when I have given our lists of Statements to those outside our group for review, I have gotten "Great!", and, "Keep your project going". Our material is considered quite educational to those who previously have had little knowledge of the issue. One of my friends is quite knowledgeable on Negative Climate Change, and he has passed it on to another Negative Climate Change group for their review.

So.........NO........not of zero value.

And I believe 8 out of our 10 Generally Accepted Statements in the CT/NCC thread are likely Truth at the Moment!

Our 10 Statements on Human Self-Government are likely ALL true "at the moment".

Our 8 Libertarian Statements here, and our 3 Democratic Marxism Statements here seem True at the Moment.

Nope....our time and effort are NOT being wasted, NOT useless.

Bob A (As Participant)