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.

 

Pax Americana is the vehicle of the NWO

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I've never understood why so many individuals who strongly criticize the NWO praise the US so much. To complain about Waco and Ruby Ridge, and then wave a US flag, is like a rape victim saying that she hates what her rapist did to her, but then sending him a birthday card every year.

Think about it. The vast majority of NWO-related misdeeds are the actions of entities of, or connected to, the US government, or at least NATO. The US is referred to as the world's only superpower, and it exerts a lot of influence over the rest of the world. One of the central themes of the NWO is a one world government, and US world hegemony is the most logical candidate for an attempt to create such a government. Claims that the UN is actually the proto-world government are absurd because the UN has representatives of nearly every state on earth, many of which are diametrically opposed to each other (for example, Iran and Israel). Also, it is clear that the UN is inept and has little actual power.

Discussions of the NWO's agenda almost always involve various facets of US world hegemony: bullying (or bribing) countries in northern Africa and southwestern Asia, spreading "freedom and democracy" as part of an international ideological crusade ("freedom and democracy", contrary to their claims, are actually very useful tools for controlling the masses, as they go hand-in-hand with MSM brainwashing and manipulation), building US bases all over the planet, economic exploitation of other states, propaganda that demonizes resistance by both non-state entities ("terrorists") and state entities ("rogue states") in an effort to force them into submission, and so forth. CFR and Bilderberg discussions are alleged to revolve around how the US and its puppet allies (e.g., the rest of NATO, plus a few other states) are going to straightjacket more of the globe.

Generally speaking, those who are seen as the biggest enemies of the NWO inside the US happen to be the most vocal critics of US interventionist foreign policies: Paleo-Conservatives and Libertarians (the Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul fans), Pacifists, Neo-Nazis (who oppose the US acting on behalf of Israel since its founding), and various other "left wing" and "right wing" dissidents.

I realize that some may say "I see no contradiction between using pro-US imagery and honoring this country, and hating the NWO, because when I do the former, I am showing respect for what this country was meant to be, not what it's become." This is illogical because the US republic is a failed experiment. It has arrived at where it is now because of its starting conditions. The NWO was able to commandeer this country precisely because this form of government made it so easy (in other words, popular government is horrible because the average person is easily manipulated). Therefore, when you wave a US flag, you're waving the flag of the NWO. When you honor the US military, you are honoring the NWO military; the only people in the US military who are not our enemies are those who join specifically to gain military experience so that they can defend themselves, and their families, against the NWO if they are forced to do so.




posted on May, 8 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
lol, The British are at the head of the NWO, the rest are just players and shills.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
The UK follows the lead of the US.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I've said similar before on these and other boards. The truth of the matter appears that many* Americans only appear to fear a non-American NWO.

They baulk at the idea of other countries becoming the dominant military presence in the world despite them having more troops stationed in more different countries than any other nation on earth.

There's a serious problem with anyone other than America and its increasingly small circle of friends having nuclear weaponry in place, despite America being the only country to actually use atomic warfare on another country.

They cry 'foul!' at the idea of a single currency but, at the same, have no problem with the rest of the world using the US dollar as the global reserve currency. Look at the brouhaha surrounding ditching the dollar when it comes to oil-trading.

The spread of 'non-American' values is interpreted as 'un-American' and wrong (look at the now engrained Pavlovian reaction towards socialism and communism) yet America will go to war claiming to want to spread America's take on liberty and cultural values without even a hint of irony. Similarly, they have no problem with America's own cultural imperialism: trying walking down a road in any British city without being faced with American brands and shops &c.

Even the way they frame criticism towards their own politicians tends to be using the 'other': Obama is a Socialist or a Communist, a Muslim, a foreign national as if the biggest fear is that man who is said to be running the world, or having the most important job in the world &c. is a non-American.

*Many is not all Americans.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
the UK and its crown, is the head of this.

america is a branch of that crown that has been used as the "superhero of democracy" "to push through and make the world safe and secure", so that when it fails, the british can retake what was theirs.

thats my take on this.

of course this crown goes much further back than england.

europeans are in control of america on the level that you are discussing.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mahtoosacks
the UK and its crown, is the head of this.

america is a branch of that crown that has been used as the "superhero of democracy" "to push through and make the world safe and secure", so that when it fails, the british can retake what was theirs.

thats my take on this.

of course this crown goes much further back than england.

europeans are in control of america on the level that you are discussing.


Further back than England? Well, let's see... depending on how you look at it England was founded anywhere between the Anglo-Saxon 'invasion' in the late 400 or the first English king proper to rule over a unified land in the 920s. So, before that, there was a period of post-Romano-Britons who really weren't that organised to the extent of planning or being involved in a NWO.

Before that there were the Romans, who had a good innings but eventually suffered from a pretty spectacular implosion. The Roman Catholic church which tied in with the latter Roman period didn't fare too well in England or several other European countries for that matter either, so it can't be them purely because it's not much of a New World Order if it can't even keep hold of England.

Before the Romans, there were various Iron Ages, and Bronze Ages as many people are quick to point out, these 'Celts' came off pretty badly when faced with Romans and Anglo-Saxons, so it can't be a Celtic New World Order either.

Is this a dinosaur thing? Are dinosaurs running the New World Order?



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by mahtoosacks
the UK and its crown, is the head of this.

america is a branch of that crown that has been used as the "superhero of democracy" "to push through and make the world safe and secure", so that when it fails, the british can retake what was theirs.

thats my take on this.

of course this crown goes much further back than england.

europeans are in control of america on the level that you are discussing.


Further back than England? Well, let's see... depending on how you look at it England was founded anywhere between the Anglo-Saxon 'invasion' in the late 400 or the first English king proper to rule over a unified land in the 920s. So, before that, there was a period of post-Romano-Britons who really weren't that organised to the extent of planning or being involved in a NWO.

Before that there were the Romans, who had a good innings but eventually suffered from a pretty spectacular implosion. The Roman Catholic church which tied in with the latter Roman period didn't fare too well in England or several other European countries for that matter either, so it can't be them purely because it's not much of a New World Order if it can't even keep hold of England.

Before the Romans, there were various Iron Ages, and Bronze Ages as many people are quick to point out, these 'Celts' came off pretty badly when faced with Romans and Anglo-Saxons, so it can't be a Celtic New World Order either.

Is this a dinosaur thing? Are dinosaurs running the New World Order?


WOW OMG HOW DID YOU KNOW IT WAS DINOSAURS!!!!???? YER SO AMAZING TO HAVE GUESSED IT!!!


yea well i dont exactly think england was called england untill....


England became a unified state in the year 927 and takes its name from the Angles, one of the Germanic tribes who settled there during the 5th and 6th centuries.

wikipedia.com/england

wow i didnt know dinosaurs lived only 1300 years ago!!!

man who was i kidding thinking that there could have been people conspiring for domination THAT long ago.... wow.

Sarcasm aside, I do think its funny that a country that cant even take over its own island, tried to rule the world.

[edit on 5/8/2009 by mahtoosacks]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mahtoosacks
WOW OMG HOW DID YOU KNOW IT WAS DINOSAURS!!!!???? YER SO AMAZING TO HAVE GUESSED IT!!!

yea well i dont exactly think england was called england untill....


England became a unified state in the year 927 and takes its name from the Angles, one of the Germanic tribes who settled there during the 5th and 6th centuries.

wikipedia.com/england

wow i didnt know dinosaurs lived only 1300 years ago!!!


Did you read the rest of the post? The bits where I mentioned what happened in between the Anglo-Saxon invasion and the dinosaurs? Where did I say the dinosaurs lived only 1300 years ago? Are you drinking drain-cleaner?


Sarcasm aside, I do think its funny that a country that cant even take over its own island, tried to rule the world.

[edit on 5/8/2009 by mahtoosacks]


That doesn't even make sense. A country take over its own island? I presume this is some bizarre dig at the English whilst completely ignoring the fact that genetically, there's very little difference between any of the people on these islands. Also, why do so many 'celts' whinge about the oppressive or occupying English? These kind of arguments can't work both ways.

You do understand that, at the time of the British Empire proper - incidentally, probably the largest Empire in history, which undermines your "tried to rule the world" - it was actually the United Kingdom anyway, don't you? Even during the 'first Empire', when it was pretty much England & Wales, it still managed to establish colonies despite being at war with half of Europe.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by mahtoosacks
the UK and its crown, is the head of this.

america is a branch of that crown that has been used as the "superhero of democracy" "to push through and make the world safe and secure", so that when it fails, the british can retake what was theirs.

thats my take on this.

of course this crown goes much further back than england.

europeans are in control of america on the level that you are discussing.


Do you have any proof of this?



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
i said its my take on it. dont need proof for an opinion.

also i think that at that time it wouldnt have needed to be a NEW world order, as they were only pushing for the first WORLD order.

and yea, dinosaurs for nwo was pretty funny, but was mainly sarcastic, so i responded as such. Which pretty much leads to the obvious that i didnt read all of what you wrote


if everyone else can come up with whoopity doo theories on why stuff is the way it is now, then so can i.

i mean really, for all we know, there isnt any (oh god im bracing for impact after this) NWO, and that all they mean by world order, is by making sure everyone plays nice. I mean if you think about it (i feel disinfo label coming) you cant really put any order to anything if there is only 1 of something, so you would need many nations to organize them into an arrangement of order..... (wow im stretching... dont kill me) If theres only 1 country on earth, then that would make it the NWA new world aquisition/merger?

besides... what's so bad about being able to go to any country and not needing a passport? (wow shoot me please)

I did understand your attempt at a history lesson, but you lost me on the dinosaurs.

My main focus of saying crown was only implying rule of people by few has existed long before england/uk/britain/whatever you wanna be called, and that those in power have always been seeking to rule ALL OF THE WORLD.

a few names that come to mind... Genghis, Attila, Xerxes, Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler... most of those came before england, and i dont remember them being dinosaurs...

i think there were even other civilizations before this time of celts you speak... i dont think they were lead by dinosaurs either.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Yeah Joe Vialls wrote about a 'Fortress Americas' plan if the NWO plan failed so for someone to be Pro-American is beyond irrational to me. The US itself was founded by Illuminated Freemasons and from the start has been part of the problem.

It is time to wake up and start being Adults and put aside petty nationalism.

My allegiance are to Conspiracy Theories only because that is where the Truth is.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join