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

[Sid Belzberg]

In Fascism, the assets are owned by the State, but administered for the benefit of the people (Correct me if I am wrong).

In Communism, the assets are owned by the workers, but administered on their behalf by the State (Correct me if I am wrong).

Question

At ground zero, in practice, what is the difference in the operation of these two statements?

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

In Communism, the assets are owned by the workers, but administered on their behalf by the State (Correct me if I am wrong).

Marx clearly states in the communist manifesto that communism can be summarized in a single sentence "abolishment of private property."
The WEF, in their 2017 promotion video, states, "You will own nothing and be happy"

In both systems, the "workers," aka citizens own NOTHING, ZERO, NADA. In practice, the "elites own everything" that historically in communist systems are
the top officials in the government and their corrupted generals that enforce policies that benefit the government elite.

THE WEF, instead of calling on people to grow and expect more are called upon to sacrifice in the name of the common good and expect less. Whether it is the scamdemic or climate change porn it is always the citizens that sacrifice while the "elite" benefits from these sacrifices.

So per your main point fascism and communism are one of the same, private corporations owned by the elite working with the government to screw over the citizenry.
The greatest transfer of wealth in the history of humanity happened in 2020 when lockdowns of the healthy on the notion for the first time in medical history that healthy people can transmit the disease; hence widespread lockdowns were necessary. The net result was that trillions of dollars worth of business were transferred from small businesses shuttered to companies like Amazon and Walmart (mysteriously, Walmarts was exempt from the lockdowns and was perfectly positioned for this meticulously planned shakedown).

Naturally, Amazon and Walmart are partners with the WEF big time. Do you think anything resembling a democracy exists? You only have to look as far as right here in Canada, replete with election interference by the CCP both in the Federal and even in the Toronto Municipal elections. JT is a young global leader of the WEF and our deputy prime minister, Crystia Freeland, is also deputy director of the WEF. Since when did Canadians elect the CCP-controlled WEF?????

[Dilip Panjwani]

In Communism, the assets are owned by the workers, but administered on their behalf by the State (Correct me if I am wrong).

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

Are you serious, Bob?
In communism, workers don't really own anything except a life with no possibilities of betterment, and the politicians and bureaucrats (whom you give the glorified term of 'State') act only on behalf of themselves and their sycophants...
It is sad that you have not yet grasped this simple fact...

[Fred Henderson]

Are you serious, Bob?
In communism, workers don't really own anything except a life with no possibilities of betterment, and the politicians and bureaucrats (whom you give the glorified term of 'State') act only on behalf of themselves and their sycophants...
It is sad that you have not yet grasped this simple fact...

I was gonna say. We might also ask who pays these assets that the workers own

[Fred Henderson]

Fred Henderson has proposed a statement (Post # 100). I would like to revise it a bit (I don't accept the second sentence) and add it to the list of Commonly Accepted Statements. I would suggest inserting it in the list as the new # 3.

Also, I am proposing a new Statement # 4.

Commonly Accepted Statements re NWO/GR

Statement # 1. World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.

Statement # 2. 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 # 3. (Henderson/Armstrong Proposal) Democratic societies have adopted "Rule by the Majority".

Statement # 4. (Armstrong Proposal) People have passed "Constitutions" and developed Courts in order to have human rights respected and to prohibit the tyranny of the majority.

Statement # 5. 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.

The floor is now open to the CT'ers avalanche of criticism! As we have said, the best comment is when there is the proposed revision of the Statement in question.

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

I reject statement #1. Same old story. Typical left wing propaganda. Are you saying that in a democracy, it is possible for a minority to impose their will on a majority? Not possible. If you say it is possible, then explain how, and give an example.

Statement 3 *your revision of my statement" I reject also. A democracy does not adopt "rule by majority". A democracy "MEANS" rule by a majority. If you say otherwise, then explain why. You can't just reject it out of hand, unless maybe you think you are talking to the psycophants and sheep who form the vast majority of your Marxist-Leninist club on Facebook. (I would say "forumn", but nobody there speaks up, they are quite happy to be spoon-=fed, it would seem.

I reject statement 4 also. The so called "tyranny of the majority" is just more left wing hype and drivel. "Tyranny is pure hyperbole. Way over the top, and no-one out there is the real world will take you seriously if you try to feed them this kind of whitewash.


5. Reject statement 5 also. People do not have the right to join hands to govern themselves. Not in a democracy.


6. I reject statement 2 also. What do you mean "" ...democratically accepted the government structure imposed (there's that word again) AT THAT TIME. People vote for the part of their choice in Canada, Left right or centrist. They vote to register ther opinions about economic and social policy, not government structure.

Keep trying Bob

[Fred Henderson]

if you want to talk about a political system being imposed by a minority, We can talk about the day the earth stood still. LOL

[Dilip Panjwani]

I reject statement #1. Same old story. Typical left wing propaganda. Are you saying that in a democracy, it is possible for a minority to impose their will on a majority? Not possible. If you say it is possible, then explain how, and give an example.

Statement 3 *your revision of my statement" I reject also. A democracy does not adopt "rule by majority". A democracy "MEANS" rule by a majority. If you say otherwise, then explain why. You can't just reject it out of hand, unless maybe you think you are talking to the psycophants and sheep who form the vast majority of your Marxist-Leninist club on Facebook. (I would say "forumn", but nobody there speaks up, they are quite happy to be spoon-=fed, it would seem.

I reject statement 4 also. The so called "tyranny of the majority" is just more left wing hype and drivel. "Tyranny is pure hyperbole. Way over the top, and no-one out there is the real world will take you seriously if you try to feed them this kind of whitewash.


5. Reject statement 5 also. People do not have the right to join hands to govern themselves. Not in a democracy.


6. I reject statement 2 also. What do you mean "" ...democratically accepted the government structure imposed (there's that word again) AT THAT TIME. People vote for the part of their choice in Canada, Left right or centrist. They vote to register ther opinions about economic and social policy, not government structure.

Keep trying Bob

Fred, don't be so dismissive of what Bob has written. Even though I do not agree at all with his Marxist beliefs, he has done quite a fair job in putting up those statements in an unbiased manner. Especially statement 4... even a cursory peek at histories of nations will reveal multiple examples of 'tyranny of the majority'; it exists even today...
Also the sad part about representative democracies is that the politicians who get elected do not serve the majority...they make fools of the majority (and minority), and sometimes it takes more than one term for the electors to realize that they are being hoodwinked, and then they elect a different party which hoodwinks them in a different way. The so-called majority does not rule, but decides which of the political parties they are less mad at. If only people could govern themselves, as in a Libertarian society, where they may join hands with like-minded co-citizens in certain ways, that would be as close to Utopia as one can get...

[Bob Armstrong]

Dilip (Post # 111)

I agree with all you say, except that our future party in Government should be a Libertarian one.

And thanks for your support for the process we are using. I am commenting on, and drafting, statements. But when I act as Group Secretary, I put my Marxism aside, and try very hard to state exactly what the group is saying (Whether I personally agree or not). I am pleased to hear I am doing this "in an unbiased manner".

Fred's Interventions (Post # 109 - 23/7/15)

However, as we are doing with Sid in the Negative Climate Change (NCC) thread, Fred's positions on the statement should be commented on by others, as you have, so that we can answer his comments on our Generally Accepted Statements. I have said elsewhere that the conversation protocol calls for this.

To this end, I will put forward the Statements, with Fred's relevant comments underneath, and Dilip's, to make it easier to answer Fred's concerns (We did this with Sid's comments on the Negative Climate Change thread):


Commonly Accepted Statements re NWO/GR

Statement # 1. World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.

Fred Henderson Comment (Post # 109 - 23/7/15): I reject statement #1. Same old story. Typical left wing propaganda. Are you saying that in a democracy, it is possible for a minority to impose their will on a majority? Not possible. If you say it is possible, then explain how, and give an example.

Statement # 2. 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).

Fred Henderson Comment (Post # 109 - 23/7/15): I reject statement 2 also. What do you mean "" ...democratically accepted the government structure imposed (there's that word again) AT THAT TIME. People vote for the part of their choice in Canada, Left right or centrist. They vote to register ther opinions about economic and social policy, not government structure.

Statement # 3. Democratic societies have adopted "Rule by the Majority".

Fred Henderson Comment (Post # 109 - 23/7/15): Statement 3 *your revision of my statement" I reject also. A democracy does not adopt "rule by majority". A democracy "MEANS" rule by a majority. If you say otherwise, then explain why. You can't just reject it out of hand, unless maybe you think you are talking to the psycophants and sheep who form the vast majority of your Marxist-Leninist club on Facebook. (I would say "forumn", but nobody there speaks up, they are quite happy to be spoon-=fed, it would seem.

Statement # 4. People have passed "Constitutions" and developed Courts in order to have human rights respected and to prohibit the tyranny of the majority.

Fred Henderson Comment (Post # 109 - 23/7/15): I reject statement 4 also. The so called "tyranny of the majority" is just more left wing hype and drivel. "Tyranny is pure hyperbole. Way over the top, and no-one out there is the real world will take you seriously if you try to feed them this kind of whitewash.

Dilip Panjwani Response (Post # 111 - 23/7/15) - statement 4... even a cursory peek at histories of nations will reveal multiple examples of 'tyranny of the majority'; it exists even today...

Statement # 5. 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.

Fred Henderson Comment (Post # 109 - 23/7/15): [I] Reject statement 5 also. People do not have the right to join hands to govern themselves. Not in a democracy.

Dilip Panjwani Response (Post # 111 - 23/7/15): ...the sad part about representative democracies is that the politicians who get elected do not serve the majority...they make fools of the majority (and minority), and sometimes it takes more than one term for the electors to realize that they are being hoodwinked, and then they elect a different party which hoodwinks them in a different way. The so-called majority does not rule, but decides which of the political parties they are less mad at. If only people could govern themselves, ........, where they may join hands with like-minded co-citizens in certain ways, that would be as close to Utopia as one can get...

Procedure

As thread secretary (Originator), I will add the comments of other CT'ers as they come forward before judging whether any/some/all of our 5 Statements to date, are still "commonly-accepted". The protocol states that where there are only a few objections, it is deemed that the statements are "generally accepted"....and we do not seek "unanimity", but only significant majority support.

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

Note: While I am thinking about it: A future Statement I wish to make will deal specifically with this issue of "Representative Government, raised by Dilip.
But it is less confusing if we deal with, and finish with, Fred's comments first.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip (Post # 111)

I agree with all you say, except that our future party in Government should be a Libertarian one.

Hi Bob, I have given you lots of reasons why I don't agree with your Marxist beliefs. Can you try to articulate a few (or even one) reasons why you do not agree with Libertarian principles?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

I will try for one.......

Libertarians believe not only in small government (The Conservative Position), but in almost no government or regulation. As I understand it, Libertarianism believes highly in the ethical standards of nearly all humans, and that normally they will do the "correct" thing. Thus Libertarianism promotes self-regulation among sectors (Such as the grocery industry), and no regulating where not necessary.

This is a mischaracterization of human nature. Humans (Combination of Spirit and Avatar) have both a "light side" and a "dark side". When born, we lean towards the light, like plants (flowers). But trauma, especially injustice from other humans, turns us to be more self-interested (Which in some ways is necessary) and to embrace our dark side (Impervious to causing pain to others, and in extreme cases, relishing it). Because of this, regulation is always necessary in human civilization. In self-regulation, there is always a conflict of interest - the correct vs profit.

I will provide examples that big corporations cannot be trusted:


Bob: "We generally like to believe that corporations will make profit, that they will do so legally, and that in the process, they will not gouge the consumer."

NOT:


1. Financing - USA - Bank of America - https://apnews.com/article/bank-amer...JBDJlrgOr1792U

2. Grocery Industry - Canada - https://www.theepochtimes.com/costs-...eZfeoYUaqJ_ydo

3. Grocery Industry - Grupo Bimbo - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...2aJAobID0VF358

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Bob Gillanders]

Libertarians believe not only in small government (The Conservative Position), but in almost no government or regulation. As I understand it, Libertarianism believes highly in the ethical standards of nearly all humans, and that normally they will do the "correct" thing. Thus Libertarianism promotes self-regulation among sectors (Such as the grocery industry), and no regulating where not necessary.

This is a mischaracterization of human nature. Humans (Combination of Spirit and Avatar) have both a "light side" and a "dark side". When born, we lean towards the light, like plants (flowers). But trauma, especially injustice from other humans, turns us to be more self-interested (Which in some ways is necessary) and to embrace our dark side (Impervious to causing pain to others, and in extreme cases, relishing it). Because of this, regulation is always necessary in human civilization. In self-regulation, there is always a conflict of interest - the correct vs profit.

Absolutely brilliant. Thank you Bob A.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

I will try for one.......

Libertarians believe not only in small government (The Conservative Position), but in almost no government or regulation. As I understand it, Libertarianism believes highly in the ethical standards of nearly all humans, and that normally they will do the "correct" thing. Thus Libertarianism promotes self-regulation among sectors (Such as the grocery industry), and no regulating where not necessary.

This is a mischaracterization of human nature. Humans (Combination of Spirit and Avatar) have both a "light side" and a "dark side". When born, we lean towards the light, like plants (flowers). But trauma, especially injustice from other humans, turns us to be more self-interested (Which in some ways is necessary) and to embrace our dark side (Impervious to causing pain to others, and in extreme cases, relishing it). Because of this, regulation is always necessary in human civilization. In self-regulation, there is always a conflict of interest - the correct vs profit.

I will provide examples that big corporations cannot be trusted:


Bob: "We generally like to believe that corporations will make profit, that they will do so legally, and that in the process, they will not gouge the consumer."

NOT:


1. Financing - USA - Bank of America - https://apnews.com/article/bank-amer...JBDJlrgOr1792U

2. Grocery Industry - Canada - https://www.theepochtimes.com/costs-...eZfeoYUaqJ_ydo

3. Grocery Industry - Grupo Bimbo - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...2aJAobID0VF358

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

Hi Bob A. and Bob G.,

Thanks for articulating what you think. Unfortunately, you fail to realize that in a Libertarian society, everyone is regulated by the only essential regulation: thou shalt not unfairly harm others... and the limited resources of society are all geared to an effective judicial system which ensures that, rather than waste society's resources in making and enforcing a myriad laws, none of which can be fair to everyone, and as you point out, trauma from these inherently unjust (for some) laws turns many people to their dark side. If there is a system which flagrantly mischaracterizes human nature, it is Marxism, because it deprives individuals of their desire to act in self-interest (and nothing wrong with acting in self-interest so long as you do not harm others doing that, other than beating them in fair competition, like in a game of chess... and losing in a competition does not bring out your dark side as much as unfairness does, and as I said, each of the myriad unnecessary laws in a non-libertarian society is inherently unfair to some).

And what makes you think that 'correct' and 'profit' are mutually exclusive? In fact, businesses which have fair prices are the businesses which end up making the biggest profits... simple school of business theory... and those businesses which try to collude in order to gouge, will always be outdone by other smart businesses which refuse to participate in the collusion... and in Libertarianism there are always many many more businesses active (in order for at least some being there to act smartly) than in our current corrupt system, in which only a few 'government favorites' turn into giant entities, while several others cannot compete because of regulations created for and by these giant entities in collusion with the unnecessarily powerful politicians and bureaucrats...

Let me know if the above fails to convince you that Marxism is incompatible with human nature, while Libertarianism is perfectly matched to it...
and if you cannot see the plain truth that Marxism makes people busy in trying to snatch a bigger piece of a limited common pie, while Libertarianism encourages people to bake a bigger pie, which, being social animals, they could willingly share with others they admire for goodness...

[Bob Armstrong]

Commonly Accepted Statements re NWO/GR

Statement # 1. World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.

Challenge - Fred Henderson - Post # 109 - 23/7/15: "I reject statement #1. Same old story. Typical left wing propaganda. Are you saying that in a democracy, it is possible for a minority to impose their will on a majority? Not possible. If you say it is possible, then explain how, and give an example."

Defence - Bob Armstrong - I was not referring to a societal minority imposing its government on a societal majority. This statement refers to the fact that in the family of earliest man, the male set the rules for his female partner(s) and children - a minority of one. Later in groups, it was a "chief", or a "king"......it is individuals determining a government structure for all. Then, for example in the United Kingdom, the wealthy nobles, barons, dukes, etc. force the King to share power with them, a minority (The Elite), and then laws got promulgated satisfactory to them (Not much consideration of the welfare of the majority). The first Statement refers to pre-democracy times. So Fred's challenge may more properly be part of his challenge content aimed at Statement # 2.

Processing Protocol

Under "The Conversation Format" protocol we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that he is not the only challenger.

We will revisit this in one week to see what activity there has been re Statement # 1.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Commonly Accepted Statements re NWO/GR

Statement # 4. People have passed "Constitutions" and developed Courts in order to have human rights respected and to prohibit the tyranny of the majority.

Challenge - Fred Henderson (Post # 109 - 23/7/15): "I reject statement 4 also. The so called "tyranny of the majority" is just more left wing hype and drivel. "Tyranny is pure hyperbole. Way over the top, and no-one out there is the real world will take you seriously if you try to feed them this kind of whitewash."

Defence - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15) - "even a cursory peek at histories of nations will reveal multiple examples of 'tyranny of the majority'; it exists even today..."

Conclusion

Under "The Conversation Format" protocol we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that he is not the only challenger.

In this case, Fred's Challenge has not been supported since Sat., July 15 (One week).

So Statement # 4 has been considered "generally accepted" by the CT'ers in this thread and can remain in the list.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Commonly Accepted Statements re NWO/GR

Statement # 5.

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.

Challenge - Fred Henderson (Post # 109 - 23/7/15): "[I] Reject statement 5 also. People do not have the right to join hands to govern themselves. Not in a democracy."

Defence - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15): "...the sad part about representative democracies is that the politicians who get elected do not serve the majority...they make fools of the majority (and minority), and sometimes it takes more than one term for the electors to realize that they are being hoodwinked, and then they elect a different party which hoodwinks them in a different way. The so-called majority does not rule, but decides which of the political parties they are less mad at. If only people could govern themselves, ........, where they may join hands with like-minded co-citizens in certain ways, that would be as close to Utopia as one can get..."

Conclusion

Under "The Conversation Format" protocol we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that he is not the only challenger.

In this case, Fred's Challenge has not been supported since Sat., July 15 (One week).

So Statement # 5 has been considered "generally accepted" by the CT'ers in this thread and can remain in the list.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Commonly Accepted Statements re Human Self-Governance (Anti-NWO/GR)

[Note: format slightly edited]

Update

Statement # 1. World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.

Challenge - Fred Henderson (Post # 109 - 23/7/15): “I reject statement #1. Same old story. Typical left wing propaganda. Are you saying that in a democracy, it is possible for a minority to impose their will on a majority? Not possible. If you say it is possible, then explain how, and give an example.”

Defence – Bob Armstrong (Post # 117 – 23/7/21): “I was not referring to a societal minority imposing its government on a societal majority. This statement refers to the fact that in the family of earliest man, the male set the rules for his female partner(s) and children - a minority of one. Later in groups, it was a "chief", or a "king"......it is individuals determining a government structure for all. Then, for example in the United Kingdom, the wealthy nobles, barons, dukes, etc. force the King to share power with them, a minority (The Elite), and then laws got promulgated satisfactory to them (Not much consideration of the welfare of the majority). The first Statement refers to pre-democracy times. So Fred's challenge may more properly be part of his challenge content aimed at Statement # 2.”

Current Status - in the week-long processing procedure

Statement # 2. 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).

Challenge - Fred Henderson (Post # 109 - 23/7/15): “I reject statement 2 also. What do you mean "" ...democratically accepted the government structure imposed (there's that word again) AT THAT TIME. People vote for the part of their choice in Canada, Left right or centrist. They vote to register ther opinions about economic and social policy, not government structure.”

Statement # 3. Democratic societies have adopted "Rule by the Majority".

Challenge - Fred Henderson (Post # 109 - 23/7/15): “your revision of my statement I reject also. A democracy does not adopt "rule by majority". A democracy "MEANS" rule by a majority. If you say otherwise, then explain why. You can't just reject it out of hand, unless maybe you think you are talking to the psycophants and sheep who form the vast majority of your Marxist-Leninist club on Facebook. (I would say "forumn", but nobody there speaks up, they are quite happy to be spoon-=fed, it would seem.”

Statement # 4. People have passed "Constitutions" and developed Courts in order to have human rights respected and to prohibit the tyranny of the majority.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15) - “... even a cursory peek at histories of nations will reveal multiple examples of 'tyranny of the majority'; it exists even today...”

Statement # 5. 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.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15): “...the sad part about representative democracies is that the politicians who get elected do not serve the majority...they make fools of the majority (and minority), and sometimes it takes more than one term for the electors to realize that they are being hoodwinked, and then they elect a different party which hoodwinks them in a different way. The so-called majority does not rule, but decides which of the political parties they are less mad at. If only people could govern themselves, ........, where they may join hands with like-minded co-citizens in certain ways, that would be as close to Utopia as one can get...”

Bob A (As Group Secretary)