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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dae

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.



Yes that is it... but its not the full thing. the real doc is like 2 hours long.

video.google.com...

^^ I found this link, it has more of the video... But some of the beginning is cut out.

Here are some of my favs.. Editors choice if you will..

Arithmetic, Population and Energy By Albert Bartlett



Dae

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by tsensel
Yes that is it... but its not the full thing. the real doc is like 2 hours long.


I think that my link is to the first part and yours to the second. Thanks for the list! I think it deserves a seperate thread dont you? Especially if we can link them to google or putfile.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dae
I think that my link is to the first part and yours to the second. Thanks for the list! I think it deserves a seperate thread dont you? Especially if we can link them to google or putfile.



My site will be up in a couple weeks.. i'll just wait till i can toss them up there.. less work =p

EDIT:

MY SITE IS SORTA UP.

www.freestate.tv...

I went ahead and put some stuff up for you guys and the ATS community. You have to register before you can download.



[edit on 29-4-2006 by tsensel]



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Cug-first off, and I'm sure you know this, anything worthwhile does take some research. There's ALOT to the NWO and admittedly it can be overwhelming at times as sometimes one doesn't know where to begin.

I do not claim that Rockefellers statement proves there's a NWO in and of itself, but taken in conjecture with everything else that's been written about it, I think it provides strong evidence.

Also as I said in my original post that started this thread.


You can buy the book here.
www.amazon.com...

I believe the above quote is on page 405

Also,I would say take a look at the executive orders. You can find them here.

www.cephas-library.com...


As far as the VAMPIRE KILLERS 2000 goes, as I said some of the info is a bit outdated, but the guy whp helped put it together is an ex?police officer.

What I would do is google it: Vampire Killers 2000 Jack Mclamb.

Vampire Killers also probably does not PROVE in and of itself that there's a NWO, but is more intended to be an "introduction" to the NWO if you will. Its's not a real long read, and the info is laid out in a faily easy, concise manner.

Another book that's an excellent starter is:New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies byWilliam Stills

This book is out of print, but you still may be able to find it. Google it.

Another thing is that to understand the NWO you have to understand the Federal Reserve, as control and creation of it (the FED) is one of the primary things, events that will bring about the NWO in America.

An excellent book is "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustice Mullins.

You can read online for free here.
usa-the-republic.com...

This book though IS pretty lengthy, but is WELL documented. Check it out if you want.

Also...I never said I worship some sort of "flying spaghetti monster", that is not my quote.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

Originally posted by Astyanax
The first two are historical and economic process that are unfolding naturally...

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

This is only a viewpoint. Of course some people will always be more powerful in terms of influencing the process than others. But the powerful are rarely in agreement with one another, and so their power acts in different directions. What actually happens is the resultant effect, which comes about by a process rather like vector addition.



But no individual or group can determine the direction or final outcome...

It took only a small group to force the Federal Reserve onto the American people.

Isn't the word force being used a little tendentiously here? Was there widespread, passionate resistance? No, of course there was not. Nobody was 'forced' to swallow the Federal Reserve, it happened because there were certain conditions favouring its establishment and not a great deal of serious, sustained opposition. You could use the word 'foisted', I suppose.



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?

That is an extraordinarily superficial reading of history. Those monarchs were forever fighting for their lives, not only amongst one another but also against their own courtiers, alternative powerbases such as the business community that is so reviled today, plagues and sundy other acts of god, and of course, revolutionaries of all kinds.

The fact is that as long as mankind has endured, some have led and others have followed. But leaders and followers alike are merely engaged in a historical process whose momentum they contribute to but whose final outcome they are powerless to decide. That is what I meant by the last line of my earlier post, quoted above. I am sure a lot of people, yourself included perhaps, would like to see a different arrangement prevail. Alas, human nature seems as ironbound as the second law of thermodynamics. Take comfort in the thought that being led is not necessarily the same as being led to the slaughter.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
But the powerful are rarely in agreement with one another, and so their power acts in different directions.

I also agree with this, the “rulers” are still humans competing with each other. (Unless your into that Reptilians stuff, then it goals vary a tad)


You could use the word 'foisted', I suppose.

Yes, much better, thanks. :up”


But leaders and followers alike are merely engaged in a historical process whose momentum they contribute to but whose final outcome they are powerless to decide.

And here the debate begins, some believe what we have is a result of intelligent design. – The NWO, I agree that it cannot make ALL the decisions, but it is sure doing its best to shape thing in its favor as much as possible. They are not absolute rulers, inasmuch as they are World Shapers.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I like the world shaper statement, thats how I feel it is. To think these corporate giants would not get together to shape and use the media to direct the world towards there goal is just not using all the resources your mind has to offer!




posted on May, 1 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Several points, why in my opinion that the NWO doesn't exist.

1) With every new leader in Europe and America they have to add their family to the controlling list of families. By now the organisation is getting rather bloated; the excuse is that ALL royalty comes from the same families from Babylon. However this is often taken as verbatim, I would be pleased if anyone could link the families of any two current world leaders by blood or marriage by listing the dates and names of each ancestor on both sides, as this is PROOF rather than 'Proof', but is oddly something that never comes up, there are always vague claims to 'Research'. I mean surely you could predict the outcomes of all elections by these means by searching back the candidates history, if this network existed, the fact that you can't is surely roof enough that it doesn't.

2)Why would they want to take over the world? Power? They have that. Money? They have that already too. Even if they had all of the power and money in the world, what would they do with it? They are not taking over just to piss you off, there must be a reason. But how come with all of the incredibly accurate 'Proof' and endlessly referred to 'Research' that comes out linking all of these secret societies together with aliens and black projects and Reptilians and whatever else, no research or proof has surfaced as to what they wish to do with the world.

3)If they are so powerful and control everything, why haven't they taken over yet? the usual excuse is that 'They are waiting for something', well they must be very patient because they've had long enough, could it possibly be that They.Don't.Exist?



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   
I think anyone seriously researching the NWO’s existence needs to watch the C-span footage contained within the documentary The American Union by Robert Gaylon Ross.

-Speech by David Rockefeller to the Business Council for the United Nation. (C-span)

-Speech by Thomas McLarty. (also form C-span)

Lately I have been thinking that NWO and Globalization are actually synonymous terms.

In American Union, Mr. Ross also equates them. I think this might be away to split NWO researchers. Academics usually prefer the term globalization, conspiracy theorists prefer the term NWO. On ATS we see an overlap (academics turned conspiracy theorists).

Thank you tsensel for the tip and your Conspiracy documentary list, I really think we should have a master documentary list somewhere on ATS.

I think the Rothschild movie I was talking about is The House of Rothschild from 1934.

I heard about it when watching another video on Google.

BTW, many have complained that they can’t get to play Google video properly. (I’m one of those) One solution is to download the video to your HD. I use keepvid.com... it’s easy and it works.

I know there’s a Firefox plug-in for this too but I’m not sure what it’s called.

EDIT
removed racist link. (sorry because of the google video skipping I hadn't gone far enough in it)

[edit on 2/5/06 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Periphery...is it really so hard to believe that this world is heading towards 1984? It's it really so hard to believe especially when the bushadministration and the media is always calling to surrender freedom for security?

Once you surrender your freedom you'll never get it back. You have been warned.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I think aldous huxley's brave new world would be a better example. It doesn't matter how much evidence you put infront of someone. If they don't want to believe it, they aren't going to. With something of this nature, if they read the CFR reports, read about the builderbergers, and understand the roots of the European Union and what the implications are, and still dont believe it. Nothing in the world is going to prove to them that it exists.

But thats just my opinion.



[edit on 2-5-2006 by tsensel]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Seeing as ATS is about freedom of speech, I've decided to put my two cents in. Here are my reasons for there being no N.W.O. ( I neither agree nor disagree with its supposed existance).

1. Power - Seriously, does anyone here think that a council or commision of several people are going to willingly share collective control of the world? Look at dictatorial contries like China etc. There are factions in there government and I doubt the N.W.O wouldn't have any.

2.Empires - As Chezz stated there have been many leaders and countries dreaming of world domination etc. And many of them (i.e Alexander the Great, Caesar) came very close. But empires rise and fall. 200 years ago the British Empire was the most powerful empire in the world. Now it is but a shado of it's former self. Though there may be a N.W.O it will eventually be toppled and a new regime will take control.

3. U.S.A - The only nation that comes close enough to being the N.W.O would be the good ol' U.S of A. 50 years ago the U.S.S.R acted as a counterbalance to America. With the bankruptcy and collapse of the U.S.S.R there isn't a single country that can stop them. Look at the Middle East. First it was Afghanistan and Iraq. Who next? Iran? All this expanding is coming from a country that was SUPPOSED to be isolationist.

4. U.N - Every paranoid conspiracy theorists dream entity. An organisation that is supposed to represent Earth and it's various nations AND maintains an army. I can imagine it now. U.N 'peacekeepers' invading and controlling every single free country for 'world peace'. Seriously. The U.N is like the League of Nations. They couldn't stop America from invading Iraq and Afghanistan and it's unlikely various nations would step aside and let the U.N invade.

5. Environment - The environment is in a bad state and I don't care who disagrees. Even with AIDS and famine wiping out most of the supposed 'useless eaters' in Africa the world is still hurtling towards an environmental crisis. Global warming is going to wipe us all out. Anyway which organisation would want to inherit a polluted world?

I could go on but I think I've made my point.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ferrozone
1. Power

Nobody said they would work hand in hand to rule the world, they are competing with each other just like any businessmen. The fact is it’s a plutocracy, and you and I are not ruling.


2.Empires

However, corporate power in stronger than ever. The concept of nation is being eroded by corporations. Presidents and heads of states work for the Fortune 500 not for you, not for me. Look for corporate empires, not nations.


3. U.S.A

Iran is definitely next, look into the Iran Oil Bourse. The US is a sort of mercenary state doing the biddings of huge corporation.


4. U.N

Watch American Union, the founding of the UN is explained. (c-span) It’s very part of the globalist agenda. (available from Tsensel) Why so you assume that they will take over, business is better in time of peace and that’s generally what they want.


5. Environment

??? Is this a serious argument? Anyway, it is still the only world we have and the only there is for them to control.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ferrozone
5. Environment - The environment is in a bad state and I don't care who disagrees. Even with AIDS and famine wiping out most of the supposed 'useless eaters' in Africa the world is still hurtling towards an environmental crisis. Global warming is going to wipe us all out. Anyway which organisation would want to inherit a polluted world?


The environment is a very sensitive issue because there is so much ... i guess you could call it disinformation ... I think it's more along the lines of, misinformed opinions.

Anyway, If you read my blurb about population above it may help you to understand something. The people whom supposedly 'control our world' are the same people who run the factories and the mines which pollute our world. We're essentially being raped.

IMHO, The earth could support 15-20 billion+ people if managed properly. However, my point was that a 7% growth rate which is what americans are accustomed to is reckless and out of control.

I honestly don't believe global 'warming' is real. The thing is, we've only been recording weather for the past 100 years or so. This is the same amount of time that we've been dumping major amounts of pollutions into the rivers and oceans. You cant form a reasonable arguement without a control period. There is no control period (except for the ice cores which are ignored). Greenland has had ice sheets for the past several thousand years. These ice sheets can be drilled and tapped then melted to get a picture of the climate (temp, gases, etc) during a general period of time. Most scientists say 'look its been getting warmer for the past 100 years, it must be global warming there is no other explanation!'.

There were some researchers who took this method back some 100,000+ years. What their data showed is that around 10-20 thousand years ago the climate started cooling down. We then went into an ice age you may be familiar with. The high point was at the same time Rome was carrying out a war against the 'barbarians' in europe.

A major gas eruption which happens usually every 3-4 years releases 10x the amount of gas that the world releases yearly (conservatively). I would consider that a small eruption.

On average, 20,000 years ago the world was 5-10C on average warmer than it is now. Conservatively. We're simply coming out of an ice age.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join