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.


The Reverse-Conspiracy-Theory

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 02:27 PM
How bout taking a little responsibility for your own actions.. All these blame games are the same. religion nwo aliens ect ect .

Just a way to make people feel like there not part of the problem . Too bad were all to blame for how things are . And will continue to be until we accept that we are ..

[Edit:As it seems it was touched on]

[edit on 14-4-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 02:44 PM

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders

-What would be wrong with mankind reverting back to a more agrarian,self sufficient lifestyle.That is what was intended by the grand design anyway,is it not?

Thats one alternative. But progress/technology are not necessarily bad things. They way humans use/abuse it is bad. If inner/emotional progress would keep up with technological progress and be combined with environmentally responsible behaviour, technology would be a fantastic and useful thing, imo.

-what would be wrong with people driving less,getting excercise in the outdoors by propelling themselves on a bicycle,instead of being fat,lazy,fast food eating cel-phone talking heads killing each other on the roads?.

Absolutely. Someone sent me a U2U about this thread discussing the "new information age" and how it will lead to dissociation from others and from outdoors. Less information, more life/fun would be great.

-what would be wrong with people having enough brains to home school their own children,and not send them to our "bacterial/viral breeding ground" schools?.?.

There you go, proposing solutions rather than only pointing out ills. I believe we need a little less "the world is evil"-theory and a little more "how can we improve" - theory.

-What would be wrong with people doing more work toward their own survival,instead of going to some store for everything,and forgetting how to feed and maintain their own selves?.

Thats right. I wouldnt have a clue of how to build and grow stuff myself. Im afraid thats the state of 90% of the population.

-What would be wrong with allowing a child to learn to think on his/her own,before polluting his/her mind with religious brainwashing,leaving the child with the choice of what BS religion to choose?.They are all in fact just mind control....

Nothing wrong with that. Inspiring post.

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 03:16 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
perhaps due to something that has been bothering you for a while.

Imagine having a grandmother who´s been traumatized beyond belief by the holocaust (so much so that she was afraid to reveal herself even 60 years after the war was over)...

...and then having some smart-ass kidiot appear saying "the holocaust never happened. Its all Illuminati-propaganda". This happens almost every day here.

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

I believe that judging things in terms of consequences is a good way to go. However, I believe that sometimes when we judge things based on consequence we find answers we don't particularly like. I'm not so much a moral relativist as I simply don't believe in morals as being a sound enough measurement of what is right and wrong. Much as our concepts of "good" and "evil" are not tangible, scientifically provable things neither are our morals.

Morals differ greatly between different regions of the world and what is morally acceptable in one country may be morally reprehensible in another. Now, that is not to discount seemingly universal and fundemental morals of not depriving someone of the right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness, however even these are not always held in the highest regard in every country. Therefore to label something as moral or immoral is simply to state that this action, person, or idea is socially acceptable or not socially acceptable. Take for instance homosexuality, it many countries it is considered both illegal and immoral yet today, in America, we believe that depriving someone of the right to act on their homosexual impulses is immoral and sometimes illegal. However this was not the case even in America 50 years ago.

So having determined that morals are neither unchanging nor universal I believe it is safe to go beyond the idea of social acceptability and add that morals are nothing more than what is considered socially acceptable by a certain generation of the population based upon current problems, issues, and philosophy they are faced with. This is not to say I support a position of throwing out all thought and burning society to the ground, my personal philosophy states that we should do no harm to others. But as in our example of a child recieving shots from the doctor, what do we do when we're faced with a situation where we must do harm, or what appears to be harm, in order to safe guard a healthy and productive future?

This is where I think a lot of the animosity towards the "NWO" and "Illuminati" stems from. We are faced with many pressing issues these days, many of them are global issues or at the very least involve multi-national problems. We, as a species, have recently become fully aware of our own mortality and of the delicate balance that we must maintain to live a happy and succesful life. We've realized that there aren't enough resources in the world for the entire population to live a comfortable and productive life like we enjoy in America and other first world countries. There is no way that we, in our current system, can expect everyone to live a full and equal life.

We are beginning to realize that we can't continue to live in the current system we have established. We've reached a certain apex or turning point in our evolution as a species and we realize that we must change everything or face our own destruction. What then do we consider the moral option? Is it more morally acceptable to continue to let a large portion of the world starve and live in poverty with no hope of betterment? Is it moral then to allow us to continue blindly down the path we've chosen of devouring the world's resources, polluting and destroying nature and killing eachother over philosophical disagreements?

What if there was a better way? If we are truly living our lives as we were meant to then I believe it wouldn't be such a stuggle and it wouldn't be so destructive. We must make a change if we are to survive as a species. What if the answer, the final goal, the utopia, requires us to take actions that we would otherwise deem morally reprehensible? What if people must die, buildings must be razed, religion must be thrown out but we achieve that sustainable utopia man has dreamed of for so long? Sometimes we are faced with situations where we must do something we would otherwise not want to do but we accept that they must be done for the survival of ourselves or others. We are willing to do something immoral if the overall outcome is considered morally right.

I would say that it is very immoral and almost "evil" to conitinue to let man destroy his home planet, fight with his fellow man and allow others to suffer. It would be completely self destructive to continue down the path we are on and we may have to do things that seem "evil" or "immoral" according to the philosophies or ideals of certain groups or individuals but these things must be done if we wish to survive. There are two things in life, truth and delusion, we must always seek the truth even if at times the truth may not be what we wish to hear.

People believe the "Illuminati" and "NWO" are "evil" because they refuse to consider the macrocosmic picture of all life on earth. People believe these gorups to be evil because they directly threaten the continuation of the individual while aiming for the betterment and success of all man. People want to live in a utopia but only as long as they get to live how they wish. We need to learn self discipline and civic responisibility, we need to learn how to sacrifice for the greater good. The world is failing because we are so focused on the self and on the gratification of the self that we are almost physically incapable of understanding or accepting a truly global plan for the betterment and survival of the human species.

So we're faced with a choice, we can continue as we are, scratching and clawing like rats, stepping on eachother, struggling to survive. We can continue to be cogs in a corporate machine, working under the delusion that we are doing the right thing and getting ahead in life. We can cling to our precious ideals and concepts of "good" and "evil", our philosophies that divide and seperate us. Or we can accept a new way, a new way of thinking and living. One that is in harmony with creation and one that provides for the happiness, success and future of all mankind. The reason that not everyone is privy to the knowledge of their plans is because most people are unwilling and incapable of making the sacrifices needed to enjoy a sustainable existence. Most people will not do something unless it directly benefits them in some financial or emotional way.

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 03:43 PM

Fritz Artz Springmeier is regarded as one of the foremost authorities on the Illuminati and mind control

This is Fritz Springmeier, your expert on the "evils of the illuminati, the rothschilds, mind control, etc."

Contrast this picture with that of Phillipe Rothschild, according to Springmeiers book "Bloodlines of the Illuminati" "one of the most evil people alive":

Just putting the microscope on conspiracy-theorists a bit

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 03:49 PM
reply to post by Shadowflux

Interesting. In a way you´re playing "devils advocate".

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Skyfloating
2. "The U.S. is evil and nations such as North Korea and Iran are the one´s standing up to the evil conspiracy".

Stuff like this is only promoted by "para-politics researchers" who havent done any travelling but mostly remained within their own hickstown realm trying to assemble a worldview from there. Ive had the displeasure of travelling communist countries and also iran and absolutely know from personal experiences that it is these regimes who are the oppresive ones. The sense you get in these countries is one of depression, anger and darkness. The sense you get when returning to the "evil" U.S. or Europe is one of lightness and relief.

I only care to argue this point. What about the WMD issue with Iraq? Doesn't the entire farce that turned out to be prove the USA to be an imperial power that lies to its own constituency for wars of offense? Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are on video saying Iraq either had nothing or was no threat prior to the events of September 11, 2001. What about the fake satellite photos shown to the United Nations by Colin Powell? Surely if there were WMDs in those photos, they would have been found after the invasion/occupation. And what about the chief U.S. WMD inspector David Kaye resigning in January 2004 after finding nothing? Its basically an open and shut case that elements of the USA government and perhaps other world governments conspired to invade Iraq for no purpose other than what appears to be oil.

The USA "evil"? Thats a religious term. The USA a warmongering criminal nation? Yes.

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 04:07 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

This is turning into an entertaining discussion Sky

In regards to Springmeier, I haven't read his book but I'm currently reading Rule by Secrecy by Jim Marrs. It's a good read and seems to be fairly unbiased in terms of the whole "evil" thing.

I think your post helps my argument a bit, I think that maybe the whole conspiracy is that there is no conspiracy. The world has always been run by people like the Rothschilds, Rockerfellers, and the Morgans. They control such vast amounts of capital, industry and business they end up creating both policy and law. There is nothing about their power that makes them "evil" they are not "spawn of the devil" they are just in charge. While they may make decisions that are detrimental to a minority at times they understand the great responsibility they have.

Mind control is a bit of a misnomer, it should be called thought directing. Those that are truly elite have such incredible power over the populous that they must be extremely careful what they do with that power. A good example would be Hitler, who had incredible sway over the populous and chose to use it towards destructive ends. The amount of control these people have is unimaginable to most of us and so must be the amount of responsibilty they have towards their interests.

If we are to assume the old axiom of "survival of the fittest" to be true then perhaps these men are in control of such vast power because they are the ones meant to attain it. If we are to assume that they have been in charge since before the American Revolution then we are forced to attribute at least some of the scientific, philosophical and technological advancments we've seen in the past few centuries to their leadership. If we are to attribute the very independance of America to such secretive organizations as the Freemasons then how are we to say we oppose their ideals?

If those that are in power are in fact beneviolent and have been responisble for a debatable amount of the betterment of mankind in the past few hundred years then we can't call them "evil" simply because they do not always safeguard our individual desires.

(edited for spelling)

[edit on 14-4-2008 by Shadowflux]

[edit on 14-4-2008 by Shadowflux]

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by Frith

I dont disagree with that for a second. The Government is at fault (because its paranoid of loosing oil, paranoid of terrorists and whatnot).
But does that make the aforementioned nations "good", because they oppose the same government you oppose? No. In fact, as far as human rights and personal freedom goes they are far,far,far worse. The priorities behind this reasoning are kind of odd.

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Shadowflux

If those that are in power are in fact beneviolent and have been responisble for a debatle amount of the betterment of mankind in the past few hundred years then we can't call them "evil" simply because they do not always safeguard our individual desires.

Nicely put. In that context much of the so-called conspiracy-literature is actually libel. Libel towards fellow humans.

Now Jim Marrs...thats the real deal. Sound research, sound argumentation without jumping to conclusions.

[edit on 14-4-2008 by Skyfloating]

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 04:17 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

Right. I wasn't arguing that Iran and North Korea are "good" or non-oppressive to their own people. They are however standing up to a very large imperial power that also holds no regard for the people of Iran or North Korea.

If given the choice between having Iran and North Korea razed to the ground in a war of conquest or allowing those same people to live in peace but remain oppressed by their governments, I choose the latter. At least they'll still be alive.

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 04:41 PM
I have thought about the alternatives before but never seen them mentioned before. Perhaps the illuminati are a group that keep the checks and balances in place so that we dont kill each other. In our current state we are not ready to unite worldwide IMHO so if a group were to say slowly try to bring us together they would have to do so in secret because the majority would just not understand. There are many who still believe in racial and religious barriers and are just not ready to cohabitate with each other.

I believe that if there is a NWO they would be trying to prevent a one world government. For one many corporations and governments prosper off of misery, war, and depleting resources. If the world was united under one roof so to speak the governments would be forced to fix these problems as any number of these problems would collapse the whole house of cards. Dictatorships eventually fall apart and the end result would not be prosperous for anyone so evil NWO is out of the question.

Perhaps there is two elite groups battling in secret for control of the globe. One wants to profit off of war and misery the other secretly strives for peace. The bad would want to make the intentions of the good seem fraudulent for example spreading fear about NWO and one world government making it seem like a bad thing to unite.

One thing is for certain we are being kept in the dark about many things but i dont think it is all necessarily done for bad intentions. Some yes but some not. For example maybe only 30% of the planet is ready for first contact contrary to popukar belief. Perhaps the majority of North America is ready and other developed countries but there are many countries that are either too religiously dominated or some are still having trouble industrializing and they are just not ready. In this case non disclosure seems adequate.

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 05:09 PM
thank you so much for this post. since l joined this site, l've been feeling very alone in my opinion that the "New World Order" is a positive thing. I like what (I beieve) the UN is trying to achieve. Call me an eternal optimist, but I think we are trying to move towards a positive future. I believe there are alot of corrupt people (Bush, etc..) and that we will continue to work towards exposing and weeding them out - can anyone honestly say that the media portrays that idiot in a positive way??

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 06:05 PM
Thank god there is a rational point of view on these forums.

What would be so bad about a one world currency?

What would be so bad about a set of laws that applied to everyone?

What would be so bad about a set of world leaders responsible for the whole globe?

There will be no "mass landing" until we are under a one world government.

Think about all the survelience the US has, imagine what people from other countries would have to say about that.... whose side you think they'd be on?

I dont think we should have a world president or anything like that, as a matter of fact I think the US needs multiple presidents, either 3 or 5.

Why not a world governing body. Bring on the NWO. Everyone wories about slavery and oppression. If you cant figure out how to control .5% of the worlds population, how on gods green earth are you going to control the masses aka the other 5.7 billion people on planet earth.

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 06:17 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

Other than the butt of his pistol showing through his jacket, Phillipe looks pretty normal vs the writer of the book who has obvious reptilian eyes. Thats it blame someone else and the heats off. Just kidding.

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 06:30 PM

Originally posted by andy1033
The illuminati are elitests, so they too, are wrong, in a way too. How can they call people racist, when they only inter marry certain family lines. Thats a racist outlook.

So there is one thing that goes against the outlook you portrayed.

Marrying certain genetic groups is not always racist.

I will not have offspring with someone of colour, not because of the colour but because of genetics I carry, which I wish to be combined with someone of similar genetics. I have no problems having a relationship with someone of colour (my current girlfriend is 25% maori/pacific islander) and I respect anyone who takes pride in their racial background, individuality and identity - no matter what it is.
I have spoken to quite a few people who are not racist and of different races too (e.g. they'll get with any race for a relationship hehehe) who share my thoughts also.
I have pride in my genetic heritage and will strive to see that genetic line continue onwards and standing proud and individual, rather than seeing it diluted and mixed up.
There will become a time where this will be very tricky due to mixing the big stirring pot if we are all still around in the future....

To the OP.
I respect you for having the guts to come out with such an interesting theory on boards such as this, starred and flagged. I will be looking into the points you have raised, in time. I will draw my own conclusion as to what you have stated... I've always been on the fence regarding NWO/illuminati theories etc. Bilderberg group is one thing that I have always wondered about... what DO they actually stand for and what DO they do......

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 06:53 PM
Very interesting, I've thought about this myself before on the same subjects. The ideology always looks nice and appeals to the majortiy, but the problem is carrying out the promises.


posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by azhure heart

thank you so much for this post. since l joined this site, l've been feeling very alone in my opinion that the "New World Order" is a positive thing.

I find it to be very frustrating sometimes when you see all these posts about disclosure about UFOs and aliens and how badly people want first contact and when you see these anti war threads going in full force, then you look in the NWO forum and the SAME people are posting anti world govt slogans and other like protest. It makes absolutely no sense to want 1st contact and world peace and to deny NWO and world govt at the same time.

While i admit that not everyone in a position of power on this planet has good intentions, not all of them are evil either. I think this is slowly being realized through the Bush administration.

So how do we achieve world government you ask? Well its simple, we need a crisis that affects everyone on the planet directly but something that is not being directly caused by a group or regime. Basically a common threat to our survival. Some examples of this are:

Outside alien threat
Depletion of oil resources
climate change/natural disasters (worldwide)
worldwide pandemic
eventual meteorite impact
major discovery that denounces all religious and historical beliefs

Almost all of these are immediately possible in as little as a few years time and people are becoming more aware of this which is why there is alot of paranoia about 2012 and NWO because for us it would be the first time we have faced something of this measure. I think though, that once we have ALL realized that we ALL have something to lose we would put aside our differences and work together but untill then we would continue to go about things as we do now.

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 07:15 PM
I ask that anyone who reads this please keep in mind that this is predicated on the hypothetical scenario in which a secret, global "over-order" does exist.

If such an order does exist in secret, I believe that it is indeed possible that they genuinely believe that they are somehow the guarantors of human welfare, and perceive themselves as being responsible for systematically ameliorating humanity's ills.

The question then becomes, "are they right?" It occurs to me that no matter how wise, enlightened, or knowledgeable they may be, any organization entirely built upon the premise that they and they alone are elite and capable enough to decide humanity's course - right down to who lives and who dies on a large scale - must, necessarily, be just as zealous and fanatical (albeit in a much more focused, thoughtful, and methodical fashion) as any other example of religious fanaticism on the Earth. The egotism that one would have to embody in order to say, "I and those like me, and we alone, are wise, courageous, dedicated, and enlightened enough to take responsibility for humanity's present and future course," has to be staggering in my opinion.

I have often thought that if a new world order, as it were, exists, that its members or constituents must truly believe that what they do is right. The only other possible motivation would be pure greed, and while that remains a possibility, I do not detect (again, assuming that they do indeed exist) that as being their primary motivation. Nonetheless, if their plans do include massive depopulation by way of war, poverty, disease, starvation, or other means; if they view war as a means to an end, even if that eventual end is global peace; if they truly see themselves as more capable of, and more to the point, better suited to controlling the affairs of the larger human race, then I can hardly view them as purely altruistic. The very notion that I and every other free thinking, living, breathing human being has no say in their endeavor would seem to rule that out in my opinion.

In conclusion, I concur and concede that if "the NWO" (or the plot to bring such an order to power) exists as depicted popularly, it may not and indeed probably does not have as its aim global domination for its own sake, but rather for the sake of bettering humanity's lot. However I also see such an effort not as being less corrupt or more altruistic in intent than other less organized religions or movements, but rather just as corrupt (and corruptible,) yet on a far grander scale, with far more dire consequences for the world they seek to save.

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 07:42 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

Yeah, it could be just like in "Life of Brian" when that band of bitter loser rebels were plotting against the romans to dismantle the entire apparatus of the Roman imperialist state. After a session of whining:

REG (irritated)
All right. But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine,
public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system, public
health and safety... What have the Romans ever done for us?

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in