Are you FOR or AGAINST the NWO?

To further plague your mind...

"is there proof?, is it all theory?"...... Think about this

The past is a concept
The future is a concept.
you are always in the present, the now.
the past was the present when it happened, it became a memory
the future isn't real, because when its there.. it is now here.. and it is now.
that is real.
this world is a bunch of symbols, how we interperate them is our concept.
You are always in the present... You are at rest, in the present.

I am against them, they follow the perishable.

[edit on 2/12/04 by dnero6911]

i reken we will only see the nwo when the governaments tell us about aliens then we can make planeterly deals with other alien worlds

I am AGAINST the NEW WORLD ORDER.
Nuff said.

Someone remind me again what the Old World Order was.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
So those are the facts, all manifestations of the NWO. So now knowing this, do you think the NWO is good or bad, and are you FOR or AGAINST?
[edit on 2-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]

Many of those statements appear to be more opinion than fact. There's no undeniable proof that both elections were rigged, and there are MANY people who would disagree with you (as they voted for Bush). Wars have been fought since the beginning of civilization, so stating that the US is and has been involved in wars means NOTHING. "Genocide" is also something that's been around as long as we have, so that's nothing new either. There have always been men and women with fantasies of global domination, many of whom have actually tried to bring these fantasies to life... only to fail. Still, nothing new. Those of us who are asking for evidence, do so only because you have labeled your own views of current events as FACTS. I agree that the NWO is just around the corner, but the evidence that you've provided is very weak. I'm truly not trying to be insulting... just making an observation.

Otherwise, I am all for the new world order. Without such an advancement, we are surely doomed to extinction in the near future. Whether we like it or not, we are reaching population levels that are unsustainable. We seem to progress technologically with each day, yet the majority of humans are still socially no different from our ancient ancestors. Dogma and fanaticism influence the lives of the masses, and that is proving to be a serious threat. Religious extremists and altogether unstable minds are gaining access to technologies that could cause incredible damage. Imagine what they will have access to in say... 20 years. We NEED to be watched, whether that makes you uncomfortable or not.

I personally prefer the idea of thinning the population through controlled breeding as opposed to mass slaughter. We could organize a system that allowed a single child per couple for the next few generations, allowing our numbers to decrease without killing anyone. Once the numbers are at a reasonable and manageable level, then the limit could be raised to two surviving children per couple within a single lifetime. If one child were to die, then they'd be allowed to try again. Of course this would require the reversible sterilization for everyone sometime during childhood as well as a global governance in order to enforce such laws. This seems far more humane than deliberately killing billions or allowing them to die of starvation and disease when the population eventually becomes unsustainable.

Maybe a new world order doesn't sound all that pleasant, but the alternative could be far worse. We need to rethink our priorities.

Originally posted by quango
Someone remind me again what the Old World Order was.

Good question, i think of it as the monarchy rule of Europe. To me that was the old world order before republicism was introduced.

Many of those statements appear to be more opinion than fact.

You can have them verified. If I was sharing opinions on NWO, believe me, they would have been very severe. Given the totality of your post, be thankful that I am not sharing all my opinions. Also take note, I said "foul play" in both elections, and that is a correct assessment

Wars have been fought since the beginning of civilization, so stating that the US is and has been involved in wars means NOTHING. "Genocide" is also something that's been around as long as we have, so that's nothing new either.

No actually, it does mean SOMETHING. It means US has been involved in the cold blooded murder of millions in the last century. Murder does mean something. I think you have forgotten that love, fear and pain is a universal language of emotions, that trascends all race, gender and specieal barriers.
We are emotional creatures, that speak and understand the same language. It needs no reasoning, no logic, it is an emotional and intuitive process.

In fact, if the US was involved in murdering a loved one, would you even be here justifying that murder. I think you will understand this when you lose a loved one. God forbid that happens. Please do note, while you can very casually talk about murder about masses or even dismiss it as a triviality, I cannot casually talk about murder about a single person I do not even know.

If such a tragedy were to befall you, then you will not talk of human life, as if it was just an object that can be repaired or replaced. Life is valuable my friend. Interestingly, what are your views on the Nazis and their extermination of millions of people?

I agree that the NWO is just around the corner, but the evidence that you've provided is very weak. I'm truly not trying to be insulting... just making an observation.

It is not evidence for the NWO. It is evidence for the actions of the NWO, in other words the shape of the world today, and what is to come, based on cold facts, that you should know if you are politically aware.

Otherwise, I am all for the new world order. Without such an advancement, we are surely doomed to extinction in the near future. Whether we like it or not, we are reaching population levels that are unsustainable. We seem to progress technologically with each day, yet the majority of humans are still socially no different from our ancient ancestors.

And you are regurgitating whose words? Allow me to parapharse; so if some 90% of human civilization is [B]NOT[/B] disposed of with global genocide, nuclear, chemical and biological wars, contamination, famine and disease, then we will surely be..... extinct? Please, for once, hear yourself talk, and you might be able to undo some of that brainwashing.

I did not think it would be possible, but apparently it is. Sure, the stupidity of accepting 9/11, the wars, the police brutality, fraudulent elections,and the dissolution of civil rights, was stupid. But, to actually accept an order to exterminate 90% of humanity, which includes at least one of your loved ones, and most like yourself. I don't even know if there is a word to express that. Someone, please help me, I am chokng on my vocabulary.

yet the majority of humans are still socially no different from our ancient ancestors.

That sounds curiously like you are suggesting social/racial Nazism. I got an idea, why don't we just kill all those socially inepts.

By the way, something I have noted about you. That others will take note of now too:

What is your mood? v-chipped
Which ideaology do you idolize? Sun-worshipping, or masonic.
What does genocide mean? Nothing
What is 90% extermination of humans? Necessary
What is human sheep? Enlightenment

Dogma and fanaticism influence the lives of the masses, and that is proving to be a serious threat. Religious extremists and altogether unstable minds are gaining access to technologies that could cause incredible damage. Imagine what they will have access to in say... 20 years. We NEED to be watched, whether that makes you uncomfortable or not.

My v-chipped, sun-worshipping, genocide condoning friend. Has it ever occured to you that it is not actually the common people who are controlling the "dangerous technology" or waging wars with it? Has it not occured to you, that it not the common people who using Christian fundamentalism to support state-sponsored wars.

I agree someone needs to be watched.. Geez, errrr, maybe the government needs to be watched? Are you doing that? Probably not.

I personally prefer the idea of thinning the population through controlled breeding as opposed to mass slaughter. We could organize a system that allowed a single child per couple for the next few generations, allowing our numbers to decrease without killing anyone. Once the numbers are at a reasonable and manageable level, then the limit could be raised to two surviving children per couple within a single lifetime. If one child were to die, then they'd be allowed to try again. Of course this would require the reversible sterilization for everyone sometime during childhood as well as a global governance in order to enforce such laws. This seems far more humane than deliberately killing billions or allowing them to die of starvation and disease when the population eventually becomes unsustainable.

Thank god for that, so now you want to show your humanity, by downgrading genocide to a last resort, and instead would like to control "breeding" by enforced government control, and of course, if one child were to die, then this is what we do, we let them have another one. Welcome to the human market.

Maybe a new world order doesn't sound all that pleasant, but the alternative could be far worse. We need to rethink our priorities.

Or you need to rethink your strategy, philosophy? But yes I can see what you can mean: After we have poisoned our human race and planet with radiation, infection, pathogens and poison, and nearly rendered the human race extinct and the planet inhospitable, we cannot possibly want worse than that

Well this discussion was very thought provoking. I think we may have to reinvent new words, or perhaps even a new species, for the new breed of human animals/fodder of the new world order, to which you proudly belong.

[edit on 3-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]