It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


How to Make People Want the NWO

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 01:13 AM
How to get people to accept what they otherwise wouldn't...

If it weren't for 911, American's would not have accepted their constitution being totally abandoned, but in the name of security most are willing to give up their freedoms. It's ok now if they tap your line without a warrant, follow you around based on your cell phone GPS without a warrant, review all your financial transactions so they can see what you've bought, sold, where you've been, without a warrant, deny you the right to fly and move about without a warrant. It's ok to send people to Guantamino and hold them indefinitely without charges or a warrant. It's necessary to keep us safe.. From whom?

9-11 was clearly an engineered event to make us be willing to accept these incredible infringements upon our constitutional rights.

They want to control the world, and for the most part they do, but there are still pockets of resistance.

There was another agenda behind 9-11 besides domestic rights, the international bankers want to rid the world of Islam. Why? Because the Koran disallows the charging of compound interest, the method by which they control the worlds economics.

I am convinced they control both the Democratic and Republican party at this point. Several things lead me to this conclusion. First, most of the major radio stations are all owned by three corporations and everyone of them has been right wing for the last six years at least, now they're changing some of their stations to left wing. Why? Well, they figure they've pushed about as far as they can with the Republican party so now they're going to use the Democrats for a while.

Another reason, the constitution requires that if a state petitions the House of Representatives for presidential impeachment, it is required to take priority. Yet three states Illinois, Washington, and California (and I don't know that there aren't more but those three have) have made such petition. When the speaker was a republican I wasn't surprised that they tabled it and did not bring it ot the floor. But now we've got a democrat as the speaker and still Nancy Pelosi does not bring it to the floor. Why?

The whole peak oil scam is just that. I keep hearing them say there have been no super-giant fields discovered since 1968, yet I'm personally aware of several discovered in the last few years, and if you dig around the Internet you will find these on the oil companies own web sites though it takes a bit of digging. Look for topics like field development, they will do things like drill test wells, measure where they first hit oil, where it ends, and by doing this define the size of the reservoir. A super giant field is any field thought to contain more than 5 billion barrels, you'll find several if you dig.

However, we do have only so much atmosphere so I'm not sure this particular scam isn't a good thing since alternatives do exist and nothing will encourage their use like $10/gallon gasoline. Still, I wish we could have adopted alternatives in a much more friendly way that didn't result in so much human suffering.

4000 characters just isn't enough for a good well supported rant however.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 01:27 AM
Another example, if you want to combine Canada, US, and Mexico into the North American Union, sharing a new common currency, the Amero (how original), one thing that will help that is to ruin the United States currency; the war on Iraq which has spent directly 500 billion dollars, and indirectly 1.5 trillion, has done a pretty good job of that.

Pretty soon the Amero will start to look like a good thing to us; and so will the North American Union when gas hits $10/barrel the Canadian oil production is going full-tilt.

And wars, they want to get a "limited" nuclear war going on way or the other, kill a few hundred million people, so that we will see how a one-world government could have prevented all of that needless death and destruction.

So we have Iran, and that will further pursue the agenda against Islam that these elitists have. Islam, like communism, gets in the way of their model of free trade, because it has that nasty restriction on compound interest.

I will tell you I actually wouldn't be opposed to a one-world government if it did several things, if it was a government for the people by the people and not by the multinational corporate oligarchy, but unfortunately the oligarchy's already running the show. I would also want to see some protections against tyranny of the masses, which is a problem with democracies. Any one world government would have to respect the cultural differences and the rights of people who are not the majority, the US model of democracy does not do that.

You know it really pains me how much unnecessary human suffering there is. I'm really quite into technology and science and I know we have all the resources we need and the technology for people worldwide to live without poverty, hunger, and we have the ability to eliminate most disease, and what's more we could do so without destroying the environment, in fact, we could do so with much better environmental stewardship than we have now.

The problem is a human trait, and particularly a human male trait, whereby one does not feel their wealth is adequate unless it's more than that of others. I think it all comes down to ancient mating rights, caveman that was the better hunter, the better provider, got more mating opportunities, so those traits have been passed down, hardwired, into the male brain.

So you get these ultra-rich elitists. It's not enough for them to have everything in life they could possibly want, it's only meaningful to them if everybody else doesn't.

These elitists, they are the human alpha-males, the ones that lead the pack, have all the power, wealth, and breeding rights. I think Stanley Kubrick portrayed this rather well in Dr. Strangelove, I think he actually understood the madness.

Most Americans at least either don't care or don't believe; whatever they say on the CBS Evening News, well, that must be the truth.

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 08:54 PM
Good post. Speaking as an American, I think that we are a bit of a different animal, and that it’s going to take extreme measures for us to accept the loss of our sovereignty, and enslavement to a global government. Those extreme conditions are now in the works IMO. The American people are soon to be cold, hungry, terrified and begging for help at any cost.

"Today Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of well being granted to them by their world government."
-Henry Kissinger, speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992, Builder-burg meeting

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 10:26 PM
Excellent post.

As a Brit I wish you all strength and good thought, but follow your hearts not your subconscious.


new topics

top topics

log in