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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Bob Armstromg
    Yet.........when I have given our lists of Statements to those outside our group for review I have gotten grest}
    And who is that,, your fellow climate-anxious sheep? Or one of your bought and paid for climate emergency propagandist scientists?
    Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Thursday, 21st September, 2023, 08:02 AM.

    Comment


    • Sid - you are so cynical.......are you older than me? I don't think I'm that cynical yet!

      Bob A

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
        And who is that,, your fellow climate-anxious sheep? Or one of your bought and paid for climate emergency propagandist scientists?
        Sid, we can debate for years about climate-anxious sheep and propagandist scientists... but in the meantime, economics will decide the argument for us.

        What do I mean by that? It doesn't matter if CO2 was once much higher than it is now, because in those days, there wasn't much people around and certainly not civilization as we know it today.

        What matters is that in the world as we know it today, with our global population of 8 billion and our technology spread around the globe, we cannot have rising CO2, and the reason we cannot have it is pure economics.

        So here is my evidence on that:

        https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/real...es/ar-AA1h37Q3

        Unless we collectively do something about the global climate -- and that "something" must involve either CO2 and methane emissions reduction OR CO2 and methane removal from the atmosphere -- global human civilization will implode economically. The insurance companies are the canaries in the coal mine.

        So Sid, argue all you want about CO2 being much higher in the ancient past, but it has NO BEARING on the world of today. All your arguments will be for naught if the insurance companies collapse and drag the entire civilized world down with them. Then we will get our emissions reductions, but in the WORST way possible.

        Comment


        • The Conversation Format Protocol (TCFP)

          Sid Belzberg
          - Post # 384 - 23/9/20

          "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."

          Response

          I have already explained to Sid the group's ruling in the CT/Negative Climate Change thread, in a post there, that there can be NO generally accepted Statement on the source of Canadian wildfires, and thus such a Statement (By either side) cannot be brought forward. He ignores my explanation and keeps bringing up this false analysis.


          1. Bob G and Bob A believe that "arson" is a "Minor" cause of current Canadian wildfires.
          2. Sid B and Dilip P believe that "arson" is a "Main" cause of current Canadian wildfires.
          3. There are about 40 daily CT viewers in the NCC thread. The other 36 viewers are boggled by the reporting; not one has expressed an opinion on this issue; they refuse to decide.
          4. Given this set of FACTS, obviously (To everyone except Sid) there can never be any common generally accepted Statement IN THAT GROUP on the source of Canadian wildfires.
          5. Therefore that group supported the Secretary's Ruling that no such Statement could be brought forward....it would simply be an endless discussion with no way to get acceptance.

          Bob A (As Group Secretary)

          Comment


          • Chilean History

            Sid Belzberg
            - Post # 384 - 23/9/20

            "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".
            Response

            The duly elected Unity Government of President Salvadore Allende was displaced by a USA-inspired coup, enlisting the Chilean Military under General Augusto Pinochet (Well documented and acknowledged by Sid in the post).

            Rather than be tortured, Salvadore committed suicide when coup troops were entering the Presidential Palace where he was making his last stand. He died on Sept. 11, 1973 in Santiago (The Capital), Chile.

            Wikipedia on the Coup

            "The 1973 Chilean coup d'état was a military overthrow of the Popular Unity government in Chile led by the democratic socialist Salvador Allende as president of Chile.[10][11] Allende, who has been described as the first Marxist to be democratically elected president in a Latin American liberal democracy,[12][13] faced significant social unrest, political tension with the opposition-controlled National Congress of Chile, and economic warfare ordered by United States president Richard Nixon.[14] On September 11, 1973, a group of military officers, led by General Augusto Pinochet, seized power in a coup, ending civilian rule. In 2000, the CIA admitted its role in the 1970 kidnapping of René Schneider (then Commander-in-chief of the Chilean Army), who had refused to use the army to stop Allende's inauguration.[15][16] 2023 declassified documents showed that Nixon, Henry Kissinger, and the United States government, which had branded Allende as a dangerous communist,[11] were aware of the coup and its plans to overthrow Allende's democratically-elected government.[17][18][19]

            Following the coup, a military junta was established, and suspended all political activities in Chile and suppressed left-wing movements, particularly communist and socialist parties, such as the Communist Party of Chile and the Socialist Party of Chile, as well as the Revolutionary Left Movement (MIR). Pinochet swiftly consolidated power and was officially declared president of Chile in late 1974.[20] The Nixon administration, which had played a role in creating favorable conditions for the coup,[21][22][23] promptly recognized the junta government and supported its efforts to consolidate power.[24] "

            Coup Preparations

            As in the USA, there is a division of power between the Administration/Presidency and the Chamber of Deputies in Chile. The Chamber of Deputies was opposition-controlled.........same situation as currently in USA.

            The resolution was part of the covert preparations for the illegal coup,to try to establish some "cover" for it...........the resolutions are meaningless and false.......the winner gets to write the history.....this is not the analysis generally of the 3 years of Unity Government of Chile. Yes it had difficulties from the start because the Chilean business community determined from the start to refuse any cooperation, and would do anything to get the government out. Yes, also, it made numbers of LEGAL progressive changes and adopted LEGAL progressive programs, using the Presidential powers available, when opposed by the Chamber.

            Bob A (Allende Supporter)
            Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Sunday, 24th September, 2023, 07:08 AM.

            Comment


            • Statements On Human Self-Government Generally

              (Generally accepted by a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Forum). The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem. They represent the partisan political spectrum and the issue spectrum.)


              Statement #11 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong – Post # 396 – 23/9/22)


              Some political systems inhibit the amount and extent of government corruption and exploitation by the "elite" (Whomever they may be in any particular system) than others. The systems that do best are "local & small" (Everyone knows what is going on) and have direct democracy (Not representative government).

              Supporting Reasons

              If the planet were to dissolve nations, and become a planet of a "Collection of Villages", with "direct" voting on substantial issues, then corruption would be less, and the consequences would be less (Likely hard for a small village to amass an arsenal of nuclear weapons).

              Processing

              There will be one week for a Challenge; deadline: Friday, Sept. 29 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

              Bob A (As Participant)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fred Harvey View Post
                There once was an internet poll
                With four active guys on a roll
                An idiot with too many years
                A conspiracy theorist with fears
                A Libertarian fan....and a troll


                Well this "silent member" in no way supports the "majority vote"! And I suspect that most of the other silent members only tune in here for a chuckle from time to time. Really guys, step back and take a look at some of your posts....
                After seeing the limited reaction to my "deleted. posts" thread, I have changed my mind about "silent members". There are none! There are about six of us who waste our time reading this crap, and we all post, so we all know who we are. The number of views that Armstrong thinks are interested patrons are simply the six or so of us checking in three or more times a day. So in reality no-one is following any of this stuff....we really need to get a life!
                Fred Harvey

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fred Harvey View Post

                  After seeing the limited reaction to my "deleted. posts" thread, I have changed my mind about "silent members". There are none! There are about six of us who waste our time reading this crap, and we all post, so we all know who we are. The number of views that Armstrong thinks are interested patrons are simply the six or so of us checking in three or more times a day. So in reality no-one is following any of this stuff....we really need to get a life!
                  Wow, you are most wise Fred. A morning free of trolls, could it be everyone is taking your advise?
                  Yes, step away from the keyboard, get some fresh air. It is a wonderful autumn day.

                  Thanks.


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post

                    ..........A morning free of trolls, could it be everyone is taking your advise?
                    Yes, step away from the keyboard, get some fresh air. It is a wonderful autumn day.

                    Thanks.

                    Well not quite. Have you seen the last posts on Fred Henderson"s thread about a tournament celebrating Vlad Dobrich?
                    Fred Harvey

                    Comment


                    • Thread Activity/Participation

                      Gee.......how many viewers do I have to have, or do other CT'er viewers have to have, for my life's project, and your societal contribution, to be worth doing?

                      Fred's Math is pretty good! There are only an average of about 4 new posts per day........ there are on average, in this group, some 30 odd views per day. If the 6 hard core participants came and viewed every new post separately during the day, this would account for 24 of the 30 views per day! Let's assume that the last 6 views are by differing individuals who just look in randomly once a day (And catch all 4 posts at the end of the day). We'd then have 12 CT'ers who actively come to the thread daily.

                      This doesn't seem to take a lot of time out of the day of the 12 CT'ers.........If they don't have a life, it is because they do nothing else but come here.......then they really do need to get a life!

                      IF this is the true case (I doubt the 6 hard-core come 4X per day........I know I don't), then we 12 CT'ers have done a yeoman's job in producing the three sets of good Statements we have.

                      Does this mean that this little project is worth the small amount of our time per day we spend on it, including me?

                      Bob A (As Participant)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                        Thread Activity/Participation

                        ...........then we 12 CT'ers have done a yeoman's job in producing the three sets of good Statements we have.

                        Does this mean that this little project is worth the small amount of our time per day we spend on it, including me?

                        Bob A (As Participant)
                        I never bother to read your "statements"! Too long and repetitive....what if the other hard-core people without a life are like me?
                        Fred Harvey

                        Comment


                        • Recent Townhall meeting Aurora Ontario

                          FREEDOM RISING: MAN UNMASKS CANADIAN CITY COUNCIL'S ECOFASCIST NWO PLAN & THE AUDIENCE APPLAUDS
                          Play

                          Comment


                          • Group Secretary Election

                            Nomination Process -
                            Post # 368 - 23/9/17

                            3. Secretary Replacement Nominations

                            Click image for larger version  Name:	Democracy  1.jpg Views:	10 Size:	7.2 KB ID:	229237

                            So the position of Group Secretary is now open for one week.

                            Any member of the group can come forward to volunteer to replace me. Should someone come forward, there will be an election.......I am going to let my name stand to continue the volunteer job, if the group wants me to continue. If not, it is a lot less work to just become a member!

                            There can be no nomination of someone else without them posting their consent to being nominated, at the same time as the posting of the nomination.

                            Nomination Deadline: Sunday, Sept. 24 @ 11:59 PM EDT

                            Processing

                            After one week, no other CT'er has been nominated to run for Secretary. I allowed my name to stand.

                            Conclusion

                            Bob Armstrong is acclaimed volunteer Group Secretary indefinitely or until the next election, when called for.


                            Bob A (As Group Secretary)

                            Comment


                            • 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)

                              Democratic Marxism


                              Statements Generally Accepted by Democratic Marxists in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem. They represent the partisan political spectrum and the issue spectrum.

                              [Secretarial Note:

                              1. These Statements # 4 - # 11were passed by this CT'er group as part of our Human Self-Government list at a time when Supporting Reasons were not necessary to propose a Statement. Thus there still are none.
                              2. These Statements have been adopted not only by this HS-G group, but also by a Facebook Democratic Marxist discussion group.....they were brought there, from here, and were passed!
                              3. Given these 8 Statements have now been adopted in two separate groups, it seems most efficient to deal with the 8 Statements as a group. If you Challenge, please be clear with Statement you are Challenging, with Challenge Reasons.]

                              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.

                              Processing

                              After one week, no CT'er came forward to launch either a "Revision Challenge" and/or an "Objection Challenge".

                              Conclusion

                              These Statements are generally accepted by the Democratic Marxist members of this CT'er group, and join the DM List of Statements.

                              [Secretarial Note:
                              This set of DM Statements have the identical numbering to the set of Statements adopted by the Fb Democratic Marxist Global Forum.]


                              Bob A (As Group Secretary)
                              Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 26th September, 2023, 08:35 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Democratic Marxism

                                UPDATE (23/9/26)

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	Democratic Marxism.jpg
Views:	28
Size:	13.7 KB
ID:	229492

                                A. 11 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
                                1. 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.

                                [Secretarial Note: Statements # 1 - # 11 on Democratic Marxism have been endorsed as accurate by:

                                a. 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. A group of about 250 members of a Fb group, The Democratic Marxist Global Forum. 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.
                                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.

                                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.

                                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)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X