It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why NWO is necessary

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I don't know why but let's just take this thought for a moment.

Maybe we need the NWO.

Why? They'll keep things civil and stop us from destroying the planet further.

So is NWO such a bad thing after all? Because let's admit if there is no one to keep us in check this planet would have been
destroyed already. We need someone to lead us and to show us the way until such time we evolve to put aside our emotions.
edit on 25-10-2014 by Kandinsky because: fixed title typo




posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: VitaArcanum
I don't know why but let's just take this thought for a moment.

Maybe we need the NWO.

Why? They'll keep things civil and stop us from destroying the planet further.



Their plan is to get rid of all but 500 million...apparently.

So killing 6.5 billion people is the way they will keep things civil I guess.

You're on the NWO bandwagon. I guess you would be the first volunteer to be eliminated.

Right?



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: VitaArcanum

I thought the NWO was all about commerce and banking?

How will that "save" the planet




posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: VitaArcanum

The Apollonian and Dionysian forces need to be synthesized into one coherent whole, and humanity needs to evolve from the ground up so that we can become better stewards of our lives, destinies and this planet. A centralized government cannot achieve that for us. We are inherently independent and this social renaissance must be born out laterally from among us.

Hierarchical systems breed corruption, inefficient and unresponsive bureaucracy and totalitarianism. Even if for the first 40 years some glorious leader remains in control long enough to turn us onto a virtuous path, his predecessor most certainly will destroy us. This is the inherent flaw in Marxism. You can never transcend the rule of the proletarian to achieve statelessness because the proletarian of today becomes the aristocrat of tomorrow.

We need a decentralized grass-root uprising from among the people of this world and without such a thing there is no hope for any of us in the long term.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Wow. Careful there buddy, they're getting to you.

Please, please look at history. Who has the monopoly on violence? Who has slaughtered hundreds of millions in the last century alone? Government. Sure, other interests ie the weapons manufacturers and the banks, to name a couple big ones, are involved, but they only gain their legitimacy through the violence of GOVERNMENT.

Now we need a larger one world government? To heal us from the abuse of government. It is Orwellian logic, 2+2=5. In an abusive relationship the best thing to do is to leave the situation. The abuser will always blame the victim.
"Without us you would destroy everything," claims the government. HELLO militarized government has a monopoly on destroying everything. What is worse? Me driving my car freely without restrictions, burning petroleum. Or an ICBM wiping out Nagasaki? Or a plane from good old government (looking out for us and saving us from ourselves) spraying ???? on US almost every day of the week?

Saying more/global governance is the answer is like saying more coc aine for an overdose. And don't give me that "it would end war" because there would be no nation states. The gang that is orchestrating this is the same gang on both sides in every conflict in the last 100 years. Sure, peace and prosperity is right around the corner if we just submit and wave our natural (or god or creator given or whatever you want to call it) RIGHTS!

So no, I disagree. Thanks for the post. Been there, pondered that.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   


Why? They'll keep things civil and stop us from destroying the planet further.



Corporations and big banking pretty much run the planet now and it doesn't seem to be working out very well for any of us. They're not trying to develop cleaner fuels, stop wars or take better care of their workers,
how will it be if they had Total control?
edit on 24-10-2014 by DAVID64 because: punctuation



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: badgerprints

originally posted by: VitaArcanum
I don't know why but let's just take this thought for a moment.

Maybe we need the NWO.

Why? They'll keep things civil and stop us from destroying the planet further.



Their plan is to get rid of all but 500 million...apparently.

So killing 6.5 billion people is the way they will keep things civil I guess.

You're on the NWO bandwagon. I guess you would be the first volunteer to be eliminated.

Right?


Naw I wouldn't but what if they can sort all the crap out. Sure it will take a sacrifice to get there but the real question is - Are we capable to get there on our own?



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: VitaArcanum

I thought the NWO was all about commerce and banking?

How will that "save" the planet



One global currency so no one fights over money.

Religion is abolished so no one fights due to having a different Deity.

No more nations waring with each other for all nations will be united.

How would that be a bad thing?



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: VitaArcanum

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: VitaArcanum

I thought the NWO was all about commerce and banking?

How will that "save" the planet



One global currency so no one fights over money.

Religion is abolished so no one fights due to having a different Deity.

No more nations waring with each other for all nations will be united.

How would that be a bad thing?


Perhaps not bad according to some people.

But Mankind is at least 10,000 years away from that.

The absolute utopia is not realistic without massive authoritarianism.

For most, that would not mean utopia would it.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: VitaArcanum
I don't know why but let's just take this thought for a moment.

Maybe we need the NWO.

Why? They'll keep things civil and stop us from destroying the planet further.

So is NWO such a bad thing after all? Because let's admit if there is no one to keep us in check this planet would have been
destroyed already. We need someone to lead us and to show us the way until such time we evolve to put aside our emotions.


Despite all the nonsense that is going to flood in as a result of the title..
... NWO doesn't exist... do I think it would be bad? not exactly.. I think if we're ever to truly embrace space endeavors and if intelligent life exists outside of our planet .. we should be united... if we truly were visited now they'd think we were a clusterf*ck of madness killing eachother over religion ... deities that don't exist..

But as of right now we are basically modern empires ... the USA being the largest of those empires for now ... China will be the next Empire according to statisticians look at trends.. of course "Empire" isn't the term .. but they are looking "most powerful nation" based on many variables.. including military spending, gdp .. etc .. our history is full of this.. the rise and fall of empires.. I have no inclination to believe whatsoever that a world power exists... we can't get along .. we never could get along... so we've got some growing up to do yet ..



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: VitaArcanum

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: VitaArcanum

I thought the NWO was all about commerce and banking?

How will that "save" the planet



One global currency so no one fights over money.

Religion is abolished so no one fights due to having a different Deity.

No more nations waring with each other for all nations will be united.

How would that be a bad thing?


Perhaps not bad according to some people.

But Mankind is at least 10,000 years away from that.

The absolute utopia is not realistic without massive authoritarianism.

For most, that would not mean utopia would it.


True true but at the same time someone has to take the first steps to get us there. If NWO is it I guess we could try to see where it will take us. Also how do we know NWO would be a bad thing? I mean sure we thinks it is and see it as it is. But how can we truly know their real agenda? We only have theories...



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

But Mankind is at least 10,000 years away from that.


My last response basically has the same sentiment... we can't get along now.. so we have a lot of growing left to do.. this will only happen if we live long enough to survive our terrible two's
so to speak..



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: VitaArcanum

What should we do as a people?

What's the first 10 steps?




posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: miniatus

originally posted by: VitaArcanum
I don't know why but let's just take this thought for a moment.

Maybe we need the NWO.

Why? They'll keep things civil and stop us from destroying the planet further.

So is NWO such a bad thing after all? Because let's admit if there is no one to keep us in check this planet would have been
destroyed already. We need someone to lead us and to show us the way until such time we evolve to put aside our emotions.


Despite all the nonsense that is going to flood in as a result of the title..
... NWO doesn't exist... do I think it would be bad? not exactly.. I think if we're ever to truly embrace space endeavors and if intelligent life exists outside of our planet .. we should be united... if we truly were visited now they'd think we were a clusterf*ck of madness killing eachother over religion ... deities that don't exist..

But as of right now we are basically modern empires ... the USA being the largest of those empires for now ... China will be the next Empire according to statisticians look at trends.. of course "Empire" isn't the term .. but they are looking "most powerful nation" based on many variables.. including military spending, gdp .. etc .. our history is full of this.. the rise and fall of empires.. I have no inclination to believe whatsoever that a world power exists... we can't get along .. we never could get along... so we've got some growing up to do yet ..




What if let's say something like the NWO shows up and says this for example.

If your nation wants to start wars ? You will be erased back to the stone age.

If your nation wants to help and achieve thing with other? You will be rewarded.

Would that not be such a bad thing, sure nations would fear going back to the stone age. But it would sure as hell keep everyone in check.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: VitaArcanum

I knew it.

I knew it.




posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: VitaArcanum

What if let's say something like the NWO shows up and says this for example.

If your nation wants to start wars ? You will be erased back to the stone age.

If your nation wants to help and achieve thing with other? You will be rewarded.

Would that not be such a bad thing, sure nations would fear going back to the stone age. But it would sure as hell keep everyone in check.


Well technically speaking... that was kind of what the United Nations was supposed to be after WW2 .. the problem is the UN doesn't do much... they wag their finger and threaten .. they make resolution after resolution... but that's all they do.. then you have those nations that are powerful enough to have veto power.. so even if the UN tried to pass a resolution... say .. against Iran ... Russia actually likes Iran ... they veto it ...

That's my point.... we don't get along... it's a constant game of political one-upmanship .. a real life game of RISK .. the UN was the closet thing to a real NWO we've ever came close to .. and it's really a failure unless it comes to humanitarian situations.. and even then it's sketchy..

I agree that if it were implemented and nations played by the rules.. and we got rid of the veto .. things might be different, especially if they had teeth to do something about it ...



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: VitaArcanum

What should we do as a people?

What's the first 10 steps?



First step: Elect a leader who has been poor,middle class and rich. It would bring stability as to someone who would understand all classes and rule with fare judgement. Instead of favoring just 1 class.

Second step: He must get rid of world religions and redistribute all the wealth religions have been storing/hiding over the 100's of years. The money could be used for more schools, better medical systems, arts, culture etc. Solve the worlds homeless and famine issue.

Third step: Get rid of all worlds currencies and unite them all under one so we no longer war with one another to ensure that one currency dominates/rules the others.

Fourth step: Unite all nations under one leader or world council that will make decisions as a whole, with always counting peoples opinions on the decisions made.

Fith step: Release green tech and do away with the need to drain the vast Earth resources, sustainable energy could lead us to intergalactic travel. Technology would also drive science towards new discoveries as well and is same important to get rid of 2nd step first. As religion has been halting our progress.

These are the 5 important ones so far I think that should be taken care of.
I have not thought of the other 5 yet.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: miniatus

originally posted by: VitaArcanum

What if let's say something like the NWO shows up and says this for example.

If your nation wants to start wars ? You will be erased back to the stone age.

If your nation wants to help and achieve thing with other? You will be rewarded.

Would that not be such a bad thing, sure nations would fear going back to the stone age. But it would sure as hell keep everyone in check.


Well technically speaking... that was kind of what the United Nations was supposed to be after WW2 .. the problem is the UN doesn't do much... they wag their finger and threaten .. they make resolution after resolution... but that's all they do.. then you have those nations that are powerful enough to have veto power.. so even if the UN tried to pass a resolution... say .. against Iran ... Russia actually likes Iran ... they veto it ...

That's my point.... we don't get along... it's a constant game of political one-upmanship .. a real life game of RISK .. the UN was the closet thing to a real NWO we've ever came close to .. and it's really a failure unless it comes to humanitarian situations.. and even then it's sketchy..

I agree that if it were implemented and nations played by the rules.. and we got rid of the veto .. things might be different, especially if they had teeth to do something about it ...


I think we just need for someone to show up and be so ballsy that their balls are so big that they drag across the ground when they walk. Yes the UN in the right hands could sort everything out and you are right it needs a leader that will show teeth. If the UN wanted to they could Unite the whole of Europe and have NATO as a personal military force.

But instead we got a whole bunch of political prostitutes in the UN, not to mention the UN is like a complete hippy basically a giant valvet puss... well you get what I mean.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: VitaArcanum

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: VitaArcanum

What should we do as a people?

What's the first 10 steps?



First step: Elect a leader who has been poor,middle class and rich. It would bring stability as to someone who would understand all classes and rule with fare judgement. Instead of favoring just 1 class.

Second step: He must get rid of world religions and redistribute all the wealth religions have been storing/hiding over the 100's of years. The money could be used for more schools, better medical systems, arts, culture etc. Solve the worlds homeless and famine issue.

Third step: Get rid of all worlds currencies and unite them all under one so we no longer war with one another to ensure that one currency dominates/rules the others.

Fourth step: Unite all nations under one leader or world council that will make decisions as a whole, with always counting peoples opinions on the decisions made.

Fith step: Release green tech and do away with the need to drain the vast Earth resources, sustainable energy could lead us to intergalactic travel. Technology would also drive science towards new discoveries as well and is same important to get rid of 2nd step first. As religion has been halting our progress.

These are the 5 important ones so far I think that should be taken care of.
I have not thought of the other 5 yet.


Step 1. Eliminate the two party system... and the rules that exist to exclude candidates from major debates who are not part of the two party system.. ( Ross Perot's near success caused that... ) ..

Step 2. Be Christian - That's still the majority of America

Step 3. Hope

Politics is pandering by default... you have campaign managers who tell you what the majority want to hear, all through demographics and based on where you live.. so when they campaign around the country their message is tailored to the majority in that state...

All of the presidents of my life time have done this.. I'm not republican or democrat, I lean middle and consider myself independent.. I've voted for republicans, democrats and independents in my life
.. but I will give one example purely for the sake of example and it happens to be Bush Jr. ... very against abortion on the campaign trail and in public light but he himself drove his then girlfriend across the Texas border so she could get an abortion ... My friend who's deeply Christian simply voted for Bush because "he seems like a good Christian guy" .. he had no idea of Bush's history, he did no research.. he had no clue about his stance on issues... he liked him because he seemed more Christian... so politicians pander to that sort of thing..

Ultimately until we can get rid of the two party system and have parties that represent all of the various mindsets .. or just get rid of parties all together so you're voting on the person and the issues instead... ( best case scenario ) .. we're not going to make much progress..



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: VitaArcanum


One global currency so no one fights over money.

Religion is abolished so no one fights due to having a different Deity.

No more nations waring with each other for all nations will be united.

How would that be a bad thing?


On our first point. In America we all use the dollar. Every other country uses their own currency. Having a single currency does not magically make everyone have an equal amount or stop them from fighting. So there is no rational point or logic to the claim that a global currency would stop people from fighting over money. The people who initiate war today and historically have always been the ones with the most money. You would think with them being financially secure as they are they would not go on a mayhem spree of death and destruction of whole societies' to gain more wealth.

On our second point of abolishing religion. That would require the power to absolutely remove free will from all human beings. Even if you had the power, doing so would initiate countless loss of lives and bloodshed. Thing bout people of faith is, they are not unwilling to die for what they believe In like the pussy ass atheists'. Also people only seem to like to focus on the isolated few in todays world that preach fanaticism and violence when condemning religion while ignoring the overwhelming majority of local community churches who are always doing outreach for the needy and less fortunate.

A borderless world fails to take into account regional cultures. Even if there is no physical border between the Slavs and the Croats thee will still be a visible divide regionally represented by ethnic enclaves with differing cultures. And they do not always get along or agree.

So while young idealists like yourself can continue to believe In a world where every human being gets along, as you get older and physically experience the world and meet different people you come to realize how laughable the very concept is.

Concepts and ideas that may seem very rational to some people, will make others step back in complete disbelief. Also, who decides which concepts and ideas, cultures and traditions are acceptable or the whole world to embrace?

I mean if you are over 30 and still believe the human race can reach a utopia one day, you have not experienced the world enough and met enough different people in the world. Its like saying there is a world where water buffalo and zebras can cross a watering hole filled with crocs and nothing bad will happen. Violent nature is not a human trait, it is just a property of being alive. The most benign creatures on Earth are still rather violent in retrospect when closely examining the way in which they interact with their world.

Another thing is, what good is peace in a world of people who have no voice. Because the moment you speak against the status quo your voice will be removed utilizing violence.




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join