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.
"....One world order is dangerous. Uniting the entire planet under one creed, one law, one language, one religion, one leader is like throwing your eggs into one basket. It destroys diversity and difference, upsets balance, dehumanizes humanity, and destroys evolution. it is dangerous beyond dangers. "
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I don't know whether anyone on this forum has ever come up with a definition of "new world order" which most people here can accept.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I certainly don't have any problem with that. If you believe in a "new world order' being just that, what's your objection?
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
First, I don't buy any of this "secret bloodlines' stuff; there's simply no real evidence for it. And in the few cases where you did have rulers of different countries who were related to each other, what was the result? King Edward of England referred to Kaiser Wilhelm II (correctly) as "cousin Billy" and both were related to Nicholas and Alexandra. Yet these cousins, members of the same bloodlines, practically destroyed their respective countries fighting against each other during the time period 1914 - 1918 in what was probably the stupidest and most horrific war in history.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
History shows the opposite to be true. In just about every case in history, countries which expanded to a point where there were significant differences in race, religion, language, culture, or mores fell into disrepair and ultimately collapsed. Countries which had a unified population did not.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Look at Canada. Stable, democratic, 'civilized'. laid back -- yet threatening to break up into two (or three) countries because of language!
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
From an historical point of view, "diversity" is a failure, regardless of what lip service we pay to it here in politically-correct America.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
What I do agree with Skadi on is the fact that the bigger the government, the greater the chances of it taking away our individual freedoms. This is the main reason why I consider the UN to be a danger that we should get out of.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
In the long run, though, I don't think we really have much to worry about. There's no Huge Bilder-Burger or Egyptian Mormon Masonic Cabal Meeting in the Deepest Basements of the International House of Pancakes behind all the warring thugs who make up our respective coutries' governments.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
And I don't think tha we're going to merge into sume Uber-nation, since we're simply too different for that to work.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I do think we will see more free trade a la NAFTA and, hopefully, a move to a free-market economy, which is great.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
But the real problem isn't the Fourth Reich conspiracy
define definition.
how about, the dismantling of north american demockracy being a bad way to start a world demockracy?
how about, many countries having their own way of doing things(it's called 'culture'. something that the nwo wants to put into a giant meat grinder to make a world monoculture).
What's the problem with that? well, there is a certain gekko that reproduces by cloning itself. if a transmittable fatal disease hits one gekko, they all die.
(regarding my rejection of the ‘secret bloodline’) can you show me this no real evidence?
did you know bush can be traced back to the egyptian kings bloodline? and he's related(cousin?) to the queen of england(they even share a huge joint bank account that they use to transfer ill gained cash through
i live in perhaps the most culturally diverse city in the world(toronto), and i assure you, it's no failure.
…but not the recently grotesquely bloated dept. of homeland security? would you be insulted if i said i think your a little farsighted?
the fact is, once a year, the bilderbergers(the world's most rich and powerful) get together and have a secret weekend getaway where they discuss how they will shaft the peons over the course of the next year. the CFR meets all the time, the WTO is always open, bohemian grove isn't just a frat club, the G8 meetings are not representative of a free and open society(like they should be according to the SUPPOSED mores of the member countries' charters and whatnot), and the list goes on.
(regarding free trade being great): not 'free'. not 'great'.
Regarding not being the’ Fourth Reich conspiracy’): yes. it is.
Exactly.
You have voted Bob LaoTse for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.
Originally posted by jenkwater
I find it hilarious that people I talk to who are smart and open minded and willing to admit corruption and the negagtive, flagrant, reckless wielding of power of a few people working towards global government think that this act of world unity will be a utopia. I try to get them to realize that if the power structures now are negative, then how are they going to become heavenly by the time it is global.
Things like OnStar, Sirius, & XM radio, will be turned into ways to track "terrorists", those who are supposed to be a threat, because they want to stand for their individual rights & freedoms.
To me the NWO is the one-worlders who want a global country club for themselves and a fascist world for the rest of us. Anything beyond that I am unwarare of, ie) religous/racial prejudicial agendas. I think when it all comes down to it they don't care who they have to step on.