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.

 

Open challenge to skeptics: Why wouldn't there be a conspiracy to rule the world?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
I will ask you.....

Why wouldnt there be leprechauns riding unicorns in the merry old land of OZ? Can you PROVE that there isnt?


No, but I can use logic to argue that leprechauns are too small to be able to control an large, agressive animal like a unicorn.

Just as logic says any NWO is highly incompetent - look at the dramatic increase in global populations, and the splintering of large states into many smaller, independant, countries over the past 2 decades. Both acts totally against what the NWO would surely wish to see happen?

Of course though, if I were a NWO disinformation agent, that's just the sort of argument I'd make to throw you off the scent.....




posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   
First off, the burden of proof rests on the person with the positive claim. So, to the person who says, "There is an NWO and there is a conspiracy to rule the world!", guess what, YOU have to prove it. You don't get to say to anyone, "prove it ISN'T true!" They dont't have to do anything, YOU need to offer all of the proof. So, let's have it. Prove to me absolutely that all you claim to be true, is......



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
I haven't seen any wealthy men (including Gates) arranging much outside their own countries and friendly countries. I haven't noticed the Rockefellers making any inroads into North Korea, as an example.


What about MAI? Isn’t that an example of the NWO consolidating their powers?

Can someone please tell me the differences between mass corporatization, globalization and the NWO? Why does everyone insist that is has to be headed by one man/woman? Wouldn’t the NWO be a loose affiliation of powerful individuals with similar business interest, but who also compete with each other? Therefore thinking they would submit their authority to a single entity is ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Just as logic says any NWO is highly incompetent - look at the dramatic increase in global populations, and the splintering of large states into many smaller, independant, countries over the past 2 decades. Both acts totally against what the NWO would surely wish to see happen?


Hey...I am on your side. I think it is just wishful thinking that ANYONE is driving the train


My point was just that it is impossible to prove something DOESNT exist, no matter how ridiculous the claim. The burden of proof does NOT fall on those that dont believe....but on those that DO believe to prove that it does.


Cug

posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chezz

How's this for proof. Pull a dollar out of your pocket and look at the writing around the pyramid on the back side. What does it say?
Annuit Coeptus Novus Ordo Seclorum. What does it mean?
Annuit=Announcing
Coeptus=conception or birth
Novus=New
Ordo=order
Seclorum=secular or earthbound

The seal was put on the dollar in 1937 I believe.
They're literally anouncing the birth of the NWO on the back of the dollar bill. Any Latin-English dictionary will back me up on that.


Maybe you should check it out. For reference I used the New College Latin & English Dictionary (second edition) by John C. Traupman, Ph.D. St Johns University, Philadelphia. ISBN 0-87720-561-2

Annuit = (Third person of annuo) to nod accent to, be favorable to, smile on
Coeptus = Beginning; undertaking

Annuit Coeptus = favors our undertakings.

Note that there is no subject for Annuit Coeptus. Who favors our undertakings? To find out you have to go to the creator of the mottos and you will find that it is Providence who has favored our undertakings


Charles Thomson - the designer of the seal
"The pyramid signifies Strength and Duration: the Eye over it & the Motto allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause."


Novus=New,Young, fresh, Novel...
Ordo=order

The page you copied this from is really off on this.
Seclorum= Plural (saeculorum) Generation, Lifetime, century, age

secular would be Profanus, and earthbound would have terra(earth) in it. Not to mention Seclorum is a plural "New worlds order" doesn't make much sense.

This is a very good example of why I think the various NWO theories are bull pucky. If there are statements that I can prove to be false, and other statements that totally go against what I have personally experienced, how can I put any value on the things that I can't easily check out?

It's an boy who cried wolf thing, if you ever want someone to come to your side of the issue, you have to weed out the crap in your supporting evidence!



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by nephyx
Who knows maybe one day i will be able to make such decisions..


Not before you catch a .223 in the head..

However, Population is a problem. With a average world growth rate of 1.8% there will be 1 person per square foot of land (incorrect, see bottom) in the world within 400 years.

Can i buy your square?

Anyway, Population control is definately the best way. The methods, however crude, are essential. How about this... When children are born their "parts" are snipped. Not before harvesting the resources for child birth. These "resources" will be put in storage for when that person decides they want to have a baby. They can then be aritificially inseminated to produce the child.

Everyone gets to have sex without the worry (which is all people want anyway). Population can be controlled, and if you decide you want to have a child.. That possibility is open. 1 child per couple until population reaches acceptable numbers. Once that level is met, you can have an open lottery for a second child. Anyone who wishes to have a second child can enter. Then you can have a stable population, and a stable economy.

I love how many people say that the economy is currently stable. Growth is not stable. Especially at rates upwards of 7% in some countries. 7% growth rate is a doubling time of 10 years =/. "This is a classic case of exponential growth against finite resources."

edit:

I thought about it while I was smoking. I felt it necessary to add that I am not for taking the rights of people yet to be born to have children. If managed correctly, the world could support 8-10 billion people. However, if the 1.8% growth rate continues it would only take 48 years to turn 10 billion people into 20 billion.

Here's an example that i've always appreciated. (from Arithmitic, Population, and Energy by Dr Albert Barlett)

A man lives in an apartment alone. He believes in freedom of the bathroom. This seems pretty reasonable. Everyone should have freedom of the bathroom.

Now, what happens when 5 people live in that same apartment because property is so expensive as a result of 50 billion people on the earth. All 5 people can believe in freedom of the bathroom. however, there is only 1 bathroom. Consessions have to be made so all 5 people can use the bathroom. Yet, you'll still have to go and bang on the door "are you done yet?", "I need to crap", etc.

No matter how much everyone believes in freedom of the bathroom. It is just not possible.

edit2:

My point of this post was to back up the original posters claims about world population reduction, and why a person in charge would consider genocide necessary.

edit3:

Sorry, for all the edits. My brain isnt here tonight.


If there is an NWO plot, and there is a rebel faction against them, this rebel faction needs to intercept real reports and files that prove sinister motives and actions.


Who do you think shot down flight 93 which was headed to congress to decapitate our "government"? (Congress was in session) Remember. It is proven that cheney was the one that ordered norad to stand down.

------------


For anyone who didn't do the math of world population growth of 1.8% per year over 400 years.. The answer is 1.536 TRILLION people. That is quite a leap from 6billion isnt it? It's amazing what a few doubling periods will do.

Earth has a surface area of 196 940 400 square miles

1 square mile = 27 878 400 square feet

Excuse me about my 1 person per square foot. I was incorrect.

Total square feet on the earth = 5 490 383 in billions of square feet. Aprox 5.5 quadrillion (i forget whats above trillion? is that right?)

It ends up being 3 574 468 square feet per person (this includes places like antartica and the sahara desert =) or 82 Square Acres.

Add 2 more doubling periods (48 years per) and you have a little more than 20 acres per person in 96 years. I think you get my drift.



[edit on 27-4-2006 by tsensel]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Can someone please tell me the differences between mass corporatization, globalization and the NWO?

Certainly.

The first two are historical and economic process that are unfolding naturally in time. All kinds of people act to influence these processes. Some do so deliberately, seeking or opposing certain outcomes; others affect the process unconsciousy through their behaviour and interactions with others. But no individual or group can determine the direction or final outcome of these processes -- they are simply too complex.

There is nothing remotely mysterious about this; it is the way human societies and institutions evolve.

The third, the NWO, is the (putative) guiding hand behind an artificial, directed process of world domination. It is therefore different in kind from the first two.


Wouldn’t the NWO be a loose affiliation of powerful individuals with similar business interests, but who also compete with each other?

You mean like a chamber of commerce? Sure, I'll buy that. Remember what Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, said: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public."

But to imagine that a "loose affilliation of millionaires and billionaires" would be capable of tyrannizing over the entire earth is to misunderstand both historical process and human nature.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
I will ask you.....

Why wouldnt there be leprechauns riding unicorns in the merry old land of OZ? Can you PROVE that there isnt?


Exactly, the premise of the thread is completely non-falsifiable and therefore irrational.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   
In my opinion, the premise of the thread isnt so much non-falsifiable as much as it is almost common knowledge, given that, any government or leader or ruler at all, if thought it was within their grasp to RULE the world, would absolutely do so. To call this a conspiracy would be irrational.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chezz

There is a point to this thread, but I first briefly want to say that the idea of a group of international bankers conspiring to rule the world is NOT a "theory." I get tired of hearing the word conspiracy "theory." It IS an absolutely, conclusively, provable, incontravertable FACT beyond any shadow of any doubt whatsoever, FOR SURE!!


Dunno if this was mentioned before, but I just found a quote from a nobel prize winning economist and phycisist, Maurice Allais (Nobel prize winner in economics in 1988!) in his book: "Les conditions monétaires d'une économie de marché".. (The Monetary Conditions of a Market Economy) page 29:


"In essence, the present creation of money, out of nothing, by the banking system is, I do not hesitate to say it in order to make people clearly realize what is at stake here, similar to the creation of money by counterfeiters, so rightly condemned by law. In concrete terms, it leads to the same results."



[edit on 27-4-2006 by TheBandit795]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
You touch on an interesting and rather existential point. Why do things have “value.” Food and water had value because need them to live, but why does gold have value? It's nice to look at, rare and it is has some utility in the making of electronics, but that doesn't begin to explain its value.

There was a time when people exchanged all sort of valuable things for tulip bulbs. Things like gold, paintings and even estates, for tulip bulbs. In 1636 tulip bulbs were traded on the Dutch stock exchange. Yes, tulip bulbs.

It wasn't too long ago that people paid hundred dollars for worthless Beanie Babies. Can you imagine exchanging several days pay or MORE for a Beanie Baby? Trading in several days of your LIFE for a worthless Beanie Baby?

In the end, things are only valuable because we think they are.

[edit on 27-4-2006 by El Tiante]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by El Tiante
In the end, things are only valuable because we think they are.
[edit on 27-4-2006 by El Tiante]


Very close. Things have value because they're privately owned. If something is owned publicly (otherwise known as a commons) it does not contain value. The video "The Corporation" touches on this. If you haven't seen it I would recommend it it to everyone.

I have "the corporation" and you can download it off me if you'd like. Send me a u2u. I have more videos and information that I could ever know what to do with. Infact I plan on starting a site soon where people will be able to download a large majority of videos (documentaries where i wouldnt be infringing on copyrights) for free. Until then I can only pass them out one by one.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Cug-Actually we're both wrong.


www.greatseal.com...

But the Seal on the bill does refer to the NWO.

[edit on 28-4-2006 by Chezz]


Cug

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chezz
Cug-Actually we're both wrong.
www.greatseal.com...


Isn't that what I said? it should be as that is the site where I found out about the providence part the last time the same misstranslation was posted here.


Anyway, do you see what I mean about the boy who cried wolf thing?



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 02:37 AM
link   
I see what you're saying. I should have had my facts straight, but what I was attempting to say to begin with was that the seal on the back of a dollar in pretty compelling evidence for the existance of a NWO.

I also found this link and as I said on my initial post

www.mega.nu:8080...


But we need not take their word for it. After years of denying and ridiculing such charges, David Rockefeller has finally put an end to the speculation, making the following admission in Memoirs:
For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidentsÉto attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.


So here we have one of the major players in the NWO ADMITTING it exists and he's helping to bring it about. I think it's quite an eye opening statement considering it's coming from a Rockefeller.

Also, here is an open letter by the NWO to the "sheeple." This obviously is not a real letter from the NWO, but it gives you an idea of what the mindset behind the whole thing is. If it's conceivable that there could be a "power that be" that COULD make such statements as are found in this "letter", that's all the NWO is.
Is there a "centralized" power or government that could do what this letter claims?

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Anyone who wants the NWO in a nutshell should check out the
VAMPIRE KILLERS 2000 booklet.
You can find it here.

www.lawfulpath.com...

This was written in the early 90's so the info is abit out dated but still explains the NWO very well.


Cug

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chezz
So here we have one of the major players in the NWO ADMITTING it exists and he's helping to bring it about. I think it's quite an eye opening statement considering it's coming from a Rockefeller.


You have no such thing right now. What you have is a 3rd party claiming those are his words. You simply want to believe it as it "proves" your point. (Just like how the motto's you found proved your point) Now if I put up a website that claims that the ATS poster Chezz really worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster and here is a quote from ATS where he states the same


Originally posted by Chezz
Hi, I'm Chezz and I worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster


Somebody can just quote part of this post, put it on a website and shazam! You are now a dirty FSM worshiper... well you would be in the mind of the person who is using the same standards of "truth" you seem to be using.

Now if you read his book (or found the book online) and said on page 345 he said: xyz, I could go to the library* and check it out and then offer my opinion on what was said, and it would be a real case of a "denying ignorance" type of discussion.

*Truth be told, I'm lazy, if you said you read it and gave a page number, I'd be inclined to take you at your word if you have not given me any reason not to.


P.S.
I'm not picking on you, I'm just a bit frustrated with "proof" in the style you posted in general. Sometimes it really feels like I'm debating some unknown dude who wrote a website, and not someone posting here on ATS. It's just not as fun, and I wouldn't post here if I didn't enjoy it.


::EDIT::
I missed your second post and have a honest question about the vampires link.

Why o why are the anti-NWO sites so damn long????? I cut and pasted into a word processor and that one page is 45 printed pages!! 24,469 words! There is just no way I can make a intelligent comment on that page as it would take way to much time.


[edit on 4/28/2006 by Cug]



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
The first two are historical and economic process that are unfolding naturally in time. All kinds of people act to influence these processes. Some do so deliberately, seeking or opposing certain outcomes; others affect the process unconsciousy through their behaviour and interactions with others.


I don’t think there’s anything “natural” about this, a tiny minority benefits from it and this same tiny minority forced it on the rest of us. Local industries and self-sufficiency would be more beneficial to the majority.


But no individual or group can determine the direction or final outcome of these processes -- they are simply too complex.


It took only a small group to force the Federal Reserve onto the American people, the Federal Reserve as major repercussions.


But to imagine that a "loose affilliation of millionaires and billionaires" would be capable of tyrannizing over the entire earth is to misunderstand both historical process and human nature.


If we go back to the 18th century, we can easily see that the monarchs were a small minority tyrannizing entire nations. Why would it be possible then but “too complex” now?

Thanks for the link Bandit I’ll add it to my Fed Reserve arsenal.

Speaking of taking quotes out of context, I encourage everyone to check out an episode of CBC’s the Passionate Eye, entitled, Dark Side of the Moon. In it they show how taking quotes out of context. (they uses Kissinger, Rumsfeld etc) can prove that we never went to the moon. It’s definitely a must see for everyone.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Speaking of taking quotes out of context, I encourage everyone to check out an episode of CBC’s the Passionate Eye, entitled, Dark Side of the Moon. In it they show how taking quotes out of context. (they uses Kissinger, Rumsfeld etc) can prove that we never went to the moon. It’s definitely a must see for everyone.



I have that documentary for anyone who's intrested send me a u2u. I think I have every documentary ever made by CBC .... or ever made period...





[edit on 28-4-2006 by tsensel]


Dae

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by tsensel
I have "the corporation" and you can download it off me if you'd like. Send me a u2u.


Is it this video? Google Videos. Even if it isnt, gonna finish watching it, looks interesting
If you have any others feel free to give us their titles you never know someone may have uploaded it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join