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

[Bob Armstrong]

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)

[Fred Harvey]

..........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?

[Bob Gillanders]

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.

[Fred Harvey]

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!

[Bob Armstrong]

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)

[Bob Armstrong]

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.<sup>[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)</sup>

[Bob Armstrong]

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)

[Pargat Perrer]

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.

[Bob Armstrong]

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

Bob A

[Sid Belzberg]

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?

[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)

[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]

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)

[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

[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.