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 (possibly) worst thing about the NWO

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:08 PM
In my opinion, the worst thing about the NWO is that whenever one of us try to inform others about it, they think we are losing our minds, that we shouldn't look into these "conspiracy theories" and that "this would never happen and it's just impossible".

If it was not for the ignorance and lack of an open mind towards the info we in this forum have, the NWO could easily be taken down.

Edit: Another thing i cannot stand is when people tell me not to "worry about this" or not to waste my time with this and all this is making me insane.
If the NWO does happen, it will change all of our lives dramatically, how can people not even spend one day looking into it?!
How can people be so ignorant?

[edit on 9-2-2009 by linuxer]

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:33 PM
I'm not going to lie, I've heard people talk about NWO on the street before, but usually were old men, kinda creepy too.

But everything people like you and other have presented to me, I have no idea how I could say that its not possible and/or real. I'm not 100% sold on it but near. With everything going on in the world it seems more and more apparent to me. I really don't know what would happen if the Leading Country of the Free World became just like a communist etc country. Or a one world, it could be good, but c'mon its going to be awful!

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:36 PM
I think the big problem with people accepting the fact that NWO exists and is attempting to control us all, is that we when explaning it, seem more like fear mongering than anything else.

I've caught myself doing this more than once, unintentionally ofcourse, but still, it alienated my audience from really catching the message. I think it needs to be explained in a very logical, non "they're everywhere and it's scary" way.

We need to raise awareness that these things aren't coincidences and present people who are skeptical with facts not just conspiracy theory.

IMO that would be the best way forward. Some of us end up sounding like preachers in these conversations, that is to be avoided


posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:45 PM
You have another thread asking how to tell people about this, Sit them down and have them watch Glenn Beck.

Truth is though alot of people don't care its sad, I know alot of people that would rather no absolutely nothing about the world, then know whats going on and try to influence it. Some people you can't open their eyes, but you can't fret about them worry about people who care.

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:09 PM
reply to post by linuxer

I think the biggest problem with it is that it points the spotlight on the "enemy" by proxy.

The enemy is inside every one of us. If you were to replace the people in positions of influence and power with other people, you would get the same result.

So, if you succeeded in taking down the establishment, then the power vacuum would be filled with a new crop of overly ambitious social monkeys, just like the last batch. We have to question basic assumptions if we hope to make the world a better place - not just find an enemy and dispatch them. That's scapegoating and worse. It's wicking away energy that could be focused more productively.

Of course, THAT kind of endeavor would meet with a resistance you cannot imagine. Nothing is meaner than a monkey who believes you want to take away his banana - even if he is sitting on top of a mountain of bananas.

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:52 PM
Very good point. One thing that really doesn't help though is all the outlandish disinfo. Some of it is outrageous and is projected as fact when in actuality it is purely theories based on personal opinions.

I saw a video the other day that was an hour long purely based on opinion but was presented as fact and was clearly made on windows movie maker. This sort of thing would make anyone raise their eyebrow.

This kind of thing fuels the skeptics even further by making us conspiracy theorists look unprofessional and crazy. People need to produce better dvd's and information and create some stability to draw skeptics in. Once this is done half the battle is won, feed them slowly and they will become more hungry.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by Scope and a Beam]

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:41 PM
I think the largest danger in an OWG type situation is the possible lack of diversity and conflict. This diversity and conflict is necessary to expose flaws in governmental systems, some of which may lead to a detriment or a benefit to mankind. By having multiple competing nations rise and fall, we can observe from the outside what works in those societies and what doesn't - then apply those lessons to our own societies.

I don't mean to be blasé about this, because you have to remember that by "conflict" - that means war. Torture. Economic collapse. Starvation. I don't mean to sound like I support such horrific ends to a means, but this is how it HAS WORKED since the advent of civilization. I think we can do better, but we really don't have the means of alleviating the suffering of political selection right now aside from charity and humanitarian aid. We can definitely do better in that regard.

The problem with OWG type situations is that... evolution, either biological or ideological, find their greatest strength in diversity. You won't have that in a OWG - because it will all be standardized to comply with the overlaying world government. Each component nation of the whole may be able to form their own "flavor" of government - but that still breeds competition which is detrimental to the whole even if beneficial (in the long run) to the individual. We're currently seeing that with the continual conformity our local state governments are showing to the federal government.

To embrace a One World Government, is to embrace a slow death of atrophy. While I do think we should consider moving towards a OWG, we should stop short of a comprehensive singular government to run the world. Instead, we may elect to consolidate into super-states like the NAU or EU which would keep competition a factor in political change, while still being powerful enough to effect real and lasting policy across a broad spectrum of humanity. We shouldn't really consider One World Government until we either establish colonies in space or make contact with other civilizations.

Jefferson was exceedingly right when he stated that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Tis' it's natural manure." Perhaps he didn't envision the concept in the terms I have used, but at the core the concept is the same it shows his innate insight into the nature of the competition of ideas. No surprise that he and other founding fathers heavily endorsed public education, the free and open exchange of ideas, and revolution.

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:01 PM
reply to post by Lasheic

Nice one, Lasheic. Competition is the truth, and any solutions to problems with global integration are going to have to be true to the truth, I think, for the reasons you just articulated very clearly. I worry about creeping nihilism, though. I mean, if the truth is in the process of competition, the games and the rewards can be changed. Losing a competition needn't result in starvation or torture. But this moves the working theater squarely into psychology, since in order to change the stakes and the games, you would have to change what is "valuable".

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:06 PM
I know how you feel. I too have been told that there is nothing to worry about. However, I do worry because the things I have been reading, about what's to come keeps me up at night. I can't believe this is happening, things weren't suppose to be this way.

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:10 PM
Did any of you even consider that we may be barbarians? In order to advance the human race, old ways have to be done away with. Like Rome marching her legions across Europe and North Africa destroying the tribes people and laying down the infrastructure and future of Rome with swords, blood and bones. Only now the world has been conquered. Lines have been established. Where do we go from here? We would have to turn inward on the very ideas that we believe in and the people that believe in them. We are the enemy. Can humanity advance with the current mindset that humans have as a whole? Short answer is no.

Maybe the age of Democracy, Republics and national soveriengty have passed, just as Tribal Chiefdoms, Monarchies, and empires have.

Maybe it is time to start anew? Stagnation always gives way to diversity and in doing so we learn more about who we are as a race.


I still vote for chaos anyways. F.U. NWO

[edit on 9-2-2009 by A NeWorlDisorder]

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:59 PM
reply to post by A NeWorlDisorder

That's a frightening comparison. After all, the goths swaggered into Rome and then took the Roman law books to try to hack and cobble a new system together.

That's my biggest fear about the New Age/NWO/Illuminati/UFO memplex - that it is just a New and Improved! way to defeat the progress we have made. Any new system is going to be driven by the exact same personality types that make this one a mess.

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:06 PM
reply to post by applebiter

I worry about creeping nihilism, though.

I would say that's only a worry if nihilism is representative no solid concrete objective purpose, or representative of no purpose at all. Just as animal adapt to ever changing environmental stresses, so will governments adapt to ever changing social and economic conditions. Social conditions are subject to adaptation by political, educational, and economic conditions. Economic conditions are subject to modification by political and social conditions. Etc...

This is a highly, almost absurdly, oversimplified example. As simple as some people wish to make it, government and global politics is a highly complex system. I don't really think anyone really knows how to manage it properly. Which brings us right back to the point of competition. This is, fundamentally, why I think we're trying to move to a OWG (to keep the system under control) - yet also why I don't really believe there is some shadowy cabal of elites pulling all of the strings. It may be intuitive to the way our minds work, but it is counter-intuitive to how the world really works.

I believe a One World Government IS dangerous, but not for the reasons most other people think.

However, back to the point of nihilism. As said in another thread, I believe the universe, our reality, is nihilistic. There is no greater goal or higher purpose to any of this. However, because we can recognize our own mortality, we seek to give meaning an purpose to our lives. WE are not nihilistic. Nobody has yet been able to sufficiently answer the question; "Why are we here?" I think we're asking the wrong question. It's far easier, and more fulfilling, to answer not "What is the purpose of life" - but rather, "To what purpose do I assign my own life"?

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:08 PM
I for one welcome change. Minus some other worldly intervention , our species is doomed. Because no one wants to stand together anymore, and this game is all about divide and conquer.

Strap in and when they come for your guns stick to your morals.

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by Lasheic

That's the current way we do it. In America, the highest rewards and punishments are offered to make this country a dynamo for investors. In reality, a relatively small group of people skim the cream off of everything that this dynamo creates and absolves itself of all of the suffering that is the byproduct. I'm not moved by "hands off", existentialist views of society and economics that willfully ignore the suffering and injustice created in the wake of a dynamic system that fattens only a few.

In opposition to the OP, this is what is best about the NWO hypothesis: it rightfully exposes the people who make money from money for what they are. Parasites. Are they clever? Sure, but where is the value added? This question hangs out there, unacknowledged like a hot fart in an elevator. These people add nothing, and I'm not satisfied by any New and Improved! system that doesn't face this issue squarely.

So, yes, my ideal also is a system whereby each person is to some extent their own microculture independent and not overly reliant upon some external meaning-generating social organ (you probably know who I'm talking about). Each person pursues their happiness and fulfills their dreams as best they can.

But the rewards (like 300x salary discrepancy between a guy who sits around, talking business with his golf buddies and the guy who works on the factory floor) and the punishments (like the shame of an American child not having a proper place to sleep, education, or 3 square meals) are going to have to change, else there is going to be a total breakdown.

Oh, wait... it's already happening.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by applebiter]

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:42 PM
reply to post by A NeWorlDisorder

What do you mean by "stagnation"? If you mean an economic condition, could you explain? If you just mean it in some sort of gauzy, ephemeral sense, could you explain that? I'm not convinced that our existence hinges on the next great invention, anymore. The Snuggie pretty much says it all.

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:48 PM
NWO= stagnation.

The Dark Ages is only called the Dark Ages because we pried ourselves from its grip and rose above it and saw it for what it was.

Any NWO can be nothing but a failure and setback for humanity, but in the end will become a higher stepping stone for the future of mankind to build on.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by A NeWorlDisorder]

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:28 PM
reply to post by applebiter

I'm not moved by "hands off", existentialist views of society and economics that willfully ignore the suffering and injustice created in the wake of a dynamic system that fattens only a few.

Would it not make sense, then, to suppose that by learning how to interact with the system in order to parasite off money and resources - that these individuals are better adapted behaviorally to the environmental conditions of our society? What ecosystem on earth is without it's parasites? Some of them form a symbiotic relationship - by giving large sums of their wealth away to charity or the betterment of mankind, or by providing a service/product. Some really do not but damage the host. Such, I would argue, is the difference between Bill Gates and Bernie Maydoff.

It would do well to remember our heritage... that we are descended from hierarchical social structures often expressed in our closes animal relatives. Do not the "bottom rung" of their society get flattened while the "Alpha Male" gets fatter? At least, until the point he gets so fat that he can no longer defend his position against younger and more more vigorous males. I do NOT intend this to be a justification, but perhaps as a clue as to why this phenomena exists. Once we can identify the fundamental cause of this behavior - we can learn to identify it in ourselves and try to change it. This is the benefit of "hands-off" existentialism. The ability to step outside of our everyday lives and to try to "observe" from the outside - rather than just blaming randomly.

You should also recall that some of our founding fathers espoused the concept of a ruling elite comprised of the educated, the bankers, the businessmen - because they, it was felt, would have the temperance and education to guide the nation, whereas the "common man" wouldn't have the experience or knowledge necessary to effectively legislate government when dealing with both the business class and working class - to say nothing of foreign affairs. I believe some of the basic arguments can be found in the Federalist papers, authored primarily by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.

I don't know how they would react to the current forms of Big Government, or an NWO (it's hard to gauge how they would react to today's politics without their being fully informed about the world which shapes those politics) - but the basic principles are there. Perhaps, much like communism, the idea is good on paper but near impossible in practice.

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:39 PM
reply to post by A NeWorlDisorder

The Dark Ages is only called the Dark Ages because we pried ourselves from its grip and rose above it and saw it for what it was.

Actually, we kinda stumbled across the enlightenment while pillaging Muslim temples. The Muslims preserved the knowledge of the Hellenistic period and built upon classical Greek reasoning and logic. We might still be in the Dark Ages today were it not for those preserved texts. Islamic faith actually endorsed knowledge and science as a path to know God separate from, but parallel to, faith. It's ironic that just as we crawled out of the Dark Ages, the Islamic world largely fell into their own. The death-throes of which, I believe, we're seeing today. The Middle-East's greatest asset, oil, has prevented them from really establishing a solid research and industrial base the way countries like Japan have had to due to a lack of natural resources. However, I think the royals and leaders of those nations are starting to understand that oil will not sustain their nations forever. They are beginning to give support to the more moderate Islamic populace who wish to once again make the middle east a mecca (forgive the pun) for knowledge... who wish to join the world, rather than recluse from it. Who wish to conquer through commerce, rather than at the point of a sword.

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:41 PM
You cant wake up everyone. There is still a large portion of the population that will never believe in "nwo" or believe that the government would harm them in any way. That is why we are stuck in the two party system, slowly sinking into the abyss. NWO here we come!

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:47 PM
When the time comes you WILL do what you’re told!

[edit on 9-2-2009 by SLAYER69]

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in