It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by infinite
When it comes to the NWO, which theory do you believe to be true? Icke's reptilian bloodline theory or Jones political illuminati that has links to royal family etc? I think this is interesting to see which one members tend to go to. I myself, believe in Jones theory of the NWO and illuminati.
Originally posted by toasted
interesting link you posted there.
1933 -- The Shape of Things to Come by H.G. Wells is published. Wells predicts a second world war around 1940, originating from a German-Polish dispute. After 1945 there would be an increasing lack of public safety in "criminally infected" areas. The plan for the "Modern World-State" would succeed on its third attempt (about 1980), and come out of something that occurred in Basra, Iraq.
The book also states,
"Although world government had been plainly coming for some years, although it had been endlessly feared and murmured against, it found no opposition prepared anywhere."
Originally posted by parabolee
My biggest turn off to Jones though was his interview with Noam Chomsky (IMO one of the most intelligent people in the world and far more "sane" when it comes to "conjspiracy theory's), Jones actually claimed that Chomsky was a NWO shill because he discredited Jones' crazy theory that gun ownership keeps crime down. This theory alone discredits his work because it is not backed up by any facts or empirical data, he claims that crime in Britain went up after the British banned guns in the 80's, when Chomsky pointed out that guns were not legal in Britain before the time Jones claimed they were (on top of the fact that crime did not increase over that time) Jones called Chomsky a liar and a NWO shill. Now that alone discredits so much of his good work. it is also worth note for those that don't know, that I am British and grew up in the said time frame and guns (handguns, automatic weapons) were never legal or available in Britain. Alex Jones may have mistook the increase in guns control to include some of the more destructive "hunting" guns (shotguns and rifles), and crime did not increase after this, any suggestion that those type of hunting weapons had ANY effect on crime rates is pure insanity and unresearched conjecture.
Originally posted by Odium
He would not have lost votes to Kerry, but he would have lost votes.
Now Kerry, was what we (Politics students) call a "joke" candidate. The democrats did not wish to win the last election as they would have had to deal with the problem of Iraq and could not have pulled the troops out as the public still have heavily mixed views on such things.
Now also if he was the minority President for a second time, it would have made things even more difficult for the powers that be as more and more of the public would begin to be annoyed and question such things. Coupled with the fact the gun-law was a "feeler" law, to see what would happen and test the waters. They won't ban guns on a National level for a decade, they want to do it at a local level first.