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.


Why the NWO needs us alive and well?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:05 PM
I'm confused and have one question. How would the New World Order actually benefit from a mass extinction, or from a mass imprisonment?
It seems to me that if the NWO exists, they are already in full control. They recieve billions of dollars from citizens and governments alike. Despite the theory of citizens being put to work in FEMA camps, I can't see how it would pay as well as our current situation of gross and unreasonable taxation.
The true NWO has control and they are paid well. How would eradicating or imprisoning the majority of the world be beneficial?
I'm not sure I buy it, but I'm willing to listen!

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:57 PM
reply to post by Tunatarian

Exactly. This is what I try to explain to people. Finally, I find someone who gets it. There is no benefit to killing us, or making us fat and lazy, or imprisoning us. They have a good thing going now. Take a cut of everyones efforts and leave just enough for them to be content.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 08:05 PM
reply to post by justsomeboreddude

I can see why things like gun control and mass survelance would benefit the NWO. Even FEMA camps sortof make sense in regards to controlling perceived threats to the Order. But the idea of mass imprisonment or population control just doesn't make sense to me.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 08:15 PM
How did Soviet totalitarian rulers benefit from 30-40 million of
their own citizens murdered?

They did it selectively, only those who by some ridiculous means
presented any potential danger to their regime - got terminated.

What makes you think NWO masters will not plan for the same?
That's - selective "cleansing".

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 09:39 PM
The nwo needs people that can function in society via a workforce. The old, decrepped, disabled, feeble, and the sickly are the ones they want rid of, and fast! Right now, in 2009, according to the latest congressional budget office audit, the usa is going to pay out over 959 billion to social security, while only taking in 953 billion in tax revenues. Are you getting the bigger picture now? Yeah, they give us the lip service in frint of a microphone to appease the people, then after the cameras and mikes are gone, they get back to their real agenda!

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 09:45 PM
They dont benefit from your taxes, or from "cutting some off the top" these guys print the money.... They have all the worthless green paper they want.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 09:48 PM
It's called a labour force folks. That's what it's for. Labour. Why pay people to build things after they have control when they can just have us do it.

Like the egyptians we will be building the monuments of our masters.

Just a thought, it'll never get there cause there are far too many of us, and too little of them, but that's what they want.


posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 09:51 PM
reply to post by kcired_tsew
Go and do your research and you'll find that's why FDR took america off the gold standard and created social security. This happened in 1936, and was when america was legally bankrupt and under martial law. We have been under martial law since 1933. Go and google it and see for yourself. Don't take my word for it, please research it for yourself.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:07 PM
reply to post by thewind

I'm not sure what your getting at here, I've known for a long time we've been in a "state of emergency" since 33, maybe you should go look up the deffinition of martial law. As for being bankrupt, thats common knowledge as well. thats why the federal reserve appoints the secretary of treasury to manage the collaterol on the debt, AKA you and I.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:17 PM
I'm getting what you guys are saying, but I'm having a hard time making up my mind. There's evidence to support both theories. I just got done reading "Behold a Pale Horse" by William Cooper......a really good book! It's scary stuff, especially since the book was written around 1990. It's a really good read for those who may not have heard of it. I'm open to the possibilities, but again, I'm just having a hard time arriving at a clear opinion.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:29 PM
reply to post by kcired_tsew
They dont benefit from your taxes, or from "cutting some off the top" these guys print the money.... They have all the worthless green paper they want.
That's your post above, and I replied to the usage of our paid in social security tax dollars as to what's collatoral since fdr removed us from the gold standard. I am aware of the national emergency act of 1933 also, and one part of that act is the influction of troops on the streets, or "martial law", and although there are no troops on the streets, martial law and the national emergency act go hand in hand under subchapter 3, section 1631:Section 1631. Declaration of national emergency by Executive order; authority; publication in Federal Register; transmittal to Congress

When the President declares a national emergency, no powers or
authorities made available by statute for use in the event of an
emergency shall be exercised unless and until the President
specifies the provisions of law under which he proposes that he, or
other officers will act. Such specification may be made either in
the declaration of a national emergency, or by one or more
contemporaneous or subsequent Executive orders published in the
Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

The above means that just cause troops aren't physically on the streets, the president reserves the right to put them there anytime he sees fit without congressional approval. So, since there was no rioting when the state of emergency was declared, the use of troops was not needed, but we were still under what some like to call, " hidden martial law". I am not trying to be snippy about this or anything, just showing the facts. My apologies if I offended you at all, for that was not my intention.

new topics

top topics


log in