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.

 

I Sympathize with the NWO

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I have some advice for anyone who wants to "sympathize" with the NWO.

The age old saying, and it's not age old for no reason; "follow your heart". For if you do just that, you will see that the NWO is of evil intentions, not at all for the betterment of humanity or nature. Murder is murder, no matter how you dress it up kind sir.




posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
1. There are plenty of resources for everyone, always have been. It is just the greed of men and the lack of development of the male psyche that denies distribution of resources because of an inadequacy and pathetic need for domination, power, greed, war, money etc in order to assuage that inadequate nature.
There is no sinking boat but for the fact the elite are shooting holes in it in order they can grab even more control for their corrupt and evil selves.
2. As most evil and contemptible people are those who control others and steal the world’s resources, such as the bankers, corporate heads, politicians, presidents, drug companies, the obscenely rich, the elite etc let’s start with them then as I see no need to pass those genes on for the good of mankind’s survival. Rather than basing ‘perfection’ on some weird NAZI ideal of physical appearance and health…why not base it on moral strength and fibre whether the body is functioning or not. Some of the most physically fit are the most morally corrupt. That man who is a so called burden on society may actually be Jesus.
Failing that just lock up most of the men who have destroyed this world with their lack of emotional and spiritual development and leave the sick, the fragile, the mentally ill for the women and the good men to care about.
3. No need for that
4. Totally and absolutely so wrong.
There is an absolute need to not act with LOGIC any more but to embrace the emotional, the feeling, the empathic. Why do you think the world is in the state it is in but for men prizing logic, which is merely an excuse for the inability to feel as it is coming from left brain intellect, not right brain feminine feeling...and often from some power crazed psychosis. The masculine aspect has to step back now, it has committed unspeakable atrocities and horrors in it‘s so called logic. It has failed for thousands of years…time to step down and beg for forgiveness for despicable crimes and in it’s place for the feminine aspect to take centre stage. So that only the women and men with the feminine and masculine aspect integrated, but with the feminine slightly more dominant being the only ones ever allowed to decision make and lead ever again. The whole male dominant system has to come crashing down.
5. That will never happen while men are governing and the corporations and elite are controlling the money. The whole system has to come crashing down and those sick, greed ridden people need expelling from society…after they have given back what they stole.
6. Never happen while men are governing.
7. At the moment we are headed for total dictatorship unless we resist and throw off the shackles and say NO so loudly that those fools governing realise it‘s game over.
8. Nothing wrong with that.
9. Agree with that.
10. That should have always been the case, but for that to have happened the men controlling would have had to have had some respect and to have FELT and had empathy.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Yet another malthusian misanthrope trying to get humanity to shoot itself in the head.

The OP is free to believe and think what he wants, but he should realize that the presuppositions of the Georgia Guidestones are not accepted by all of us.

I don't believe we have overpopulation, only missuse of resources, largely because of the psychopathic corporate structure and dysfunctional vertical hierarchies which set the pace for human endeavor. We have the technology to do things right, to harmonize with nature. Most of us have the will. But our economy is run by madmen and stands in the way. And with it stands the body politic and the law. Set us free and we won't destroy the planet.

I don't believe any person should have the power to decide whether another lives or dies (unless in direct self defense while in threat of their own life or that of another), nor do I believe anyone should decide whether someone breeds or not.

I don't think there's that much tempered reason in the people proposing themselves as rulers of earth. In fact I think that, per ponerology, they are a psychopathocracy.

As has been said, if the author, or anyone thinking along those lines, wants to make population reduction real, then kindly start with yourselves and get us close to your goals. This would immediately end the debate around excessive population as the idiots who think there is too many of us would remove themselves, leaving the rest of us to live our lives in relative peace.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


Woah, woah "lack of development of the male psyche"

I'm a man and my psyche is perfectly developed, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.


It seems the only person's psyche in this room, which is not intact, is yours woman.



[edit on 16-8-2009 by sliceNodice]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by dalan.
 





Yeah, because the NWO aren't the ones dumbing us down are they? Bush isn't the one who put through the ridiculous legislation for "No Child left behind" is he? They aren't the one who fluoridate our water for our "teeth" are they? We haven't been completely socialized and indoctrinated by Hollywood drivel have we?



You see it is just this attitude displayed in your post that leads me to believe that a NWO would be good for the world. The fact that people give up all personal responsibility and turn and blame their problems on everyone and everything but themselves.

1. If you dont like the education your children are getting either send them to private school, homeschool them, or take time after public school to teach them what they are missing. It is your responsiblity to educate yourself and your children, not the government.

2. If you fear the water then filter it.

3. If you think your mind is so easily controlled by outside sources then dont watch TV or movies or read books.


[edit on 16-8-2009 by HotDogNoBun]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Heh, I'll bite! First off, the Georgia guidestones aren't really the key to NWO-style ideas. They seem kinda like tablets Aldous Huxley & his buddies would put up. As for the points: 1) .5 billion is well below the modern carrying capacity of human population - 3 to 5 billion is pretty manageable from an environmental perspective, if you can contain/fix the permanent waste.
2) "Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity." I don't really get what this means. A lot of times you have genetic traits that are moderately negative when you have only one, but are extremely positive in certain situations. Best example is sickle-cell anemia gene: if you have one, you are way more resistant to malaria. If eugenics will take hold, we'll get told that reproducing with a sickle-cell gene is bad. If you are worried about genetics you should get the Bt corn and synthetic viruses shut down before you worry about the human genome. Genetic engineering contamination (your corn gets into your DNA etc) will probably mess the human genome up soon enough anyway. And then there are the bad vaccines...
3) New language? Call it Internets. You can represent symbols between languages without nuking the existing ones, that always benefit us all because they configure ideas in novel ways. (i.e. Inuit language has novel ways not expressable in English, so save Inuit)
4) Tempered reason may be devoid of ethics. Instrumental reasoning makes Holocaust-style events possible (if you see it as an extension of totally perverted reasoning).
5) Fair laws and just courts - who sets these? The Georgia guidestone doesn't have a lot to say about the problem with NAFTA: as a treaty it is the supreme law of the land, thus the NWO squads can circumvent the US Congress via international courts and treaties, courts that overrule local wishes. What level of polity sets these? etc. RONPAUL! etc. There's nothing about different levels here.
6) External disputes? Stuff happens all over the place, letting anything with international implications roll to a world authority is the same problem as NAFTA.
7) Petty laws and useless officials -- sure, but maybe locals want petty laws. Would they be allowed to have em?
8) Personal rights and social duties -- this is so generic it's hard to say what it means. But if rights are not fundamentally supreme to "social duties" then the "Board of Social Duties" will eat your rights and your money too.
9) Prize truth/harmony with infinite -- ok but you know chaos is a strong force too.

10) Leave room for nature -- hey sure, the problem happens with the people claiming to rule with an iron fist but only to "leave room for nature" ... via the depopulation agenda.
The guidestones are a lot fluffier than the real problem -- the extension of unaccountable elite-controlled international institutions, and the extension of military-style mass social control technologies & total information awareness. This whole thing has little to do with the nature of decisionmaking structures & more about being a depopulation coolcat before the Club of Rome got going.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.


Control of Life

Who came to that number and how?... why not 500,000,001 being the perfect balance with nature... hell why not just 1 or maybe even 0? This number 1 to me shows the entire feel of this list, by defining a number they are saying someone has made a decision as to the limits and by saying someone has made these decisions then that someone is in control through having the power to decide. And that is a tyranny, no matter HOW benevolent they make its goals out to be. Old supreme warlord, father of the German nation Hitler, as some one above mentioned, is a perfect example of this.


2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.


Control of Love and Natural Process

Guiding doesnt create diversity since by its very practice your pushing towards a set of custom definitions which isnt very diverse is it.

And the handicapped already have a form of sterilization, in the very fact they rarely breed to begin with... what I think your really saying is abort any handicapped at birth since handicapped is something brought about as a natural defect in reproduction, handicapped arent the reason we have more handicapped. Then again logic (see bellow) dictates they are worthless and therefore a burden and by logic should be destroyed to improve society... the heart on the other hand says they are beings with a right to exist regardless of the body nature dealt them. Which is right?... for me the heart and empathy.

Genetic strength to me comes from diversity, and diversity comes from letting people choose who they love and have kids with, that handicapped or disabled soul might just have the genes to make the human race (or their off spring at least) immune to some disease or condition that has plagued us for centuries or might just come along and kill us off in the future. Why stop that wonderful and natural process?


3. Unite humanity with a living new language.


Control of Expression

To me unity through a shared common diversity through acknowledging that all humans are equal but at the same time different is how it should read.

We've already got a number of primary languages (English being one of the big ones) that already bind humanity together why on earth create another.


4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.


Control of Thought and Feelings

Im not a machine, but im also not an animal... all humans for the most part already temper their emotions with logic and vice versa. Its better to let logic temper your emotions than your emotions temper your logic, although tempering is not the same as ruling... ruling is alot more harsher. But in some situations its better to throw logic out entirely.


5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.


Control of Sovereignty

Whos laws and whos courts?... and who ultimately decides what they are?...that turns 'Protect' into 'Control'


6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.


This is the only thing id agree to, as long as every nation was equal within said court and no nation had veto powers or more leverage than others **cough America in the UN cough**


7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.


Control of Representation

Double edged sword, and who considers what to be petty?, a rule that protects one side of society from the exploitation of another can be looked at as petty by the other side. 'Excess' officials is the problem, not officials themselves (unfortunately corruption will always be a problem and at least with numerous officals some 'good' ones will exist, you can bribe and corrupt them far to easy if theres less of them).

This could also mean removal of ALL officials bar one all encompassing, since just what defines 'useless'?


8. Balance personal rights with social duties.


Control of Choice

It should be on the individual to make that decision, we've lost the guilt that used to go with being a mooch and as such people no longer care about watching others doing community work while they do nothing. This lose of guilt however wasnt natural and id say the majority of people still have deep down a desire to contribute to society. The main problem with that number 8 though is just how you interpret it, it can mean positive but also negative things... i dont believe those that wrote it had the positive in mind since it can mean giving up innate freedoms to 'help' society function and government always puts itself ahead of the people.


9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.


Control of Values

Dont most humans already do so in their own way? its only the TPTB that have corrupted alot of us into thinking the opposite. You mention atheism but isnt religion at its core those very aspects quoted above?


10.Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.


Control of Purpose

Man kind IS a part of nature. And nature will deal with us in good time.



Heck im not against a one world order, im an idealist at heart and wish the entire planet could live in peace and toward a common goal, but I know that such an ideal can not be forced or planned for since those who try to are not immune to corruption and by attempting to force it they show themselves as being corrupt to begin with since someone with good goals would never try to force it on anyone to start with.

It will happen when mankind as a whole chooses it, if ever.

In the mean time, no a NWO is a bad bad idea, no matter how ideal it sounds.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canis Lupus
I'm not really convinced that the people who would decided to kill off the other 9/10ths of the population are worthy to survive on this planet. And even if we do reduce our population by that much, what will keep their offspring in several generations from destroying and overpopulating the planet? They would only have to eventually do it all over again.


i'm posing the concept that the earth is a sinking ship being swarmed with far too many drowning men and women. i'm asking people to look at this idea and ask themselves whether or not, in such a situation, this might be justified.

imagine you have a small boat...one that can hold ten people, including yourself. there are 100 drowning men in front of you. you obviously can't save them all. who do you save? suppose you recognize some people in the crowd. one is a hunter. one is a farmer. one is a doctor, etc.

would you try to pick up the people that are most going to help you survive on the way to and once you arrive at dry land? or would you attempt to rescue everyone, knowing that it's impossible, and therefor not end up saving anyone at all just because choosing who gets to live seems too evil to you?

i'm not saying that this is, without doubt, what the nwo is doing. i'm saying there's as good of a possibility of this as of anything else. and it's something we should, as rational human beings, consider.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dalan.
Originally posted by Nathan_Orin

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.


First off, human beings would be destroying the Earth because of the very people that you are sympathizing with. All of our technology as of today is simply based on the technology that is owned by those who are major proponents of the New World Order.

The very same people that you are sympathizing with are the ones that gave Nikola Tesla such a hard time. The one man who could have freed mankind in unimaginable ways.

If the Earth is being destroyed by our actions, it is because of our monetary system, and the mentality that monetary value instills into us.

This is NWO propaganda.

It would be just like them to create our world as is now, and then blame us for the destruction of it.


Also, there is no reason as to why billions of people must die, that is simply an idea from someone with no imagination. There is still more than enough room for many more human beings on this planet. Our technology can, and will, save us.

www.thevenusproject.com

[edit on 8/16/2009 by dalan.]


someone else brought up the idea posed by the venus project in another post. they didn't call it that...but it was the thing from zeitgeist addendum in which they state that if every person were living just in australia with something like an half acre lot, then we'd still have the other 6 continents free, and therefore the concept of overpopulation is a moot point.

i'd really like to see some sort of scientific study on this idea aside from the venus project and the makers of zeitgeist simply stating that it's possible.

how do they come to this conclusion? do they take into consideration that only a certain portion of australia would even be suitable for farming? or do they only look at the square acreage of land space there?

aside from that, as i think it's not really a good point anyways, how in the hell are you going to get 6.6 billion people to suddenly start recycling and reusing and give up mcdonald's and their pimped out hummers?
humanity is very resistant to change. people talk a lot about movies conditioning people to believe that a major catastrophe is the only thing that could unite humanity and teach us to live in peace and in harmony with nature, and that this conditioning is evil because it's just another ploy to align us under a new world order. i, on the other hand, don't see any other way. hippies tried it a different way and that obviously didn't work.

as to the first part of your post; obviously, if the world is still over-populated, they're not trying to save us right now, they're trying to get the numbers down to something that even has a chance of being saved and, importantly, sustained.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan_Orin

imagine you have a small boat...one that can hold ten people, including yourself. there are 100 drowning men in front of you. you obviously can't save them all. who do you save? suppose you recognize some people in the crowd. one is a hunter. one is a farmer. one is a doctor, etc.

would you try to pick up the people that are most going to help you survive on the way to and once you arrive at dry land? or would you attempt to rescue everyone, knowing that it's impossible, and therefor not end up saving anyone at all just because choosing who gets to live seems too evil to you?


So your saying the NWO are the choosers who are looking for those that would help them continue... you dont find that just a little un-nerving and selfish?... we'll save you only if you provide benefit to us afterwards and dont argue since we have the boat. The whole thing is the NWO guy who is in the boat choosing is the one in your example who caused the situation where they have 100 people drowning in front of them to begin with! Whats laughable is the boat that can only hold 10 people really holds 1000 times more... but the guy in the boat wont tell the people in the water that.

What right do they have to claiming the earth and the role of decider as their own?

The earth isnt drowning, humanity is like the man in a pool thrashing around yelling for help... when all he has to do is stand up, thereby realizing his only in a few feet of water.

All im really saying is every supposed noble goal of the NWO can be turned around and seen in a negative light, and why is it that this supposed group have deemed themselves the ones to make the choices over everyone else. As for population problems, its not about population numbers but more about money and priorities... the world can support huge numbers if people where more equal in what they owned and if land was use correctly and the vast sums of cash where funneled from the war machines of the world. But thats what its all about really.. power over others, they have the boat or thats what they want those in the water to think, since that means they have control over them.


Originally posted by Nathan_Orin
as to the first part of your post; obviously, if the world is still over-populated, they're not trying to save us right now, they're trying to get the numbers down to something that even has a chance of being saved and, importantly, sustained.


So who made them god?... you live, hmm you die, umm you live. That doesnt smack of insidiousness to you? We could save all of humanity tomorrow if all military spending was funneled into more productive reasearch and goals.

Thats the whole issue, these people are basically saying we will decide these issues, when its not their right to. Its humanities as a whole.

As to getting people to change... how do you change a people who are obsessed with going up the money ladder, who have to scratch day to day to survive in a world controlled by pieces of paper. Who see others with more and desire to become like them and see the only way is to stomp on those bellow?... sure alot of people dont thankfully, but money and the desire for money and possessions sure has a way of making people happy with the status quo. Pander to mans baser instincts and youve got him on a real tight leash. The real crux is that any real significant change means a sudden drop in the money earnings of those at the top who ultimatly are the ones in power. Abandoning petrol, prevention rather than curative medicine, healthy living, smaller cities, self sufficient personal agriculture.... anathema to those in control.


[edit on 17-8-2009 by BigfootNZ]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan_Orin
 


With current technology and if it was utilized the earth would support three times the population quite easily and their would be equality...clean water,nice house,clean air,plenty of food and land.Problem is getting TPTB to utilize it and pump the money in(imagine what 3 trillion dollars would achieve,banks are more important though i guess).The whole the world is overpopulated is a myth circulated so that people don't ask themselves why we don't pump money into these things and use our technology in ways for the benefit of mankind.Africa for example is intentionally pushed down by the industrialized world,it has many resources and it is much easier to bully and coerce countries if they are not strong and prosperous.

Anyone who supports the overpopulation myth either hasn't bothered to read up on it or is plain gullible


[edit on 17-8-2009 by Solomons]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by dalan.
reply to post by HotDogNoBun
 


Yeah, because the NWO aren't the ones dumbing us down are they? Bush isn't the one who put through the ridiculous legislation for "No Child left behind" is he? They aren't the one who fluoridate our water for our "teeth" are they? We haven't been completely socialized and indoctrinated by Hollywood drivel have we?

If Americans are stupid it is because of socialization.

Our behavior is shaped by the culture we live in.

Who controls our civilization?

But, you are absolutely correct, our Politicians are working soooooo hard to make us smarter people, and we keep messing it up don't we?

I am sure that fluoridated tap water is suppose to raise my IQ score too, right?


the politicians are just the puppets of the nwo, right? isn't that one of the main things that nwo conspiracy theorists are always screaming?
so, first of all, you're casting blame on the wrong people if you're angry about what the politicians do.

second of all, what better way to highlight the boundaries in humanity than to put msg's in food, flouride in water, etc., etc.?
any intelligent person will pay attention to what is happening and study to find out what these things do to you. the common man will assume that whatever he is told in popular media is correct and act accordingly.

i think i can sum up a few responses in this one, distinctly to people proclaiming that the nwo is responsible for dumbing down the world in the first place. in a very distinct sense, yes, they are.

but suppose they're looking for the relatively few individuals in humanity who question things for themselves? public schools are horrible, this is no secret. so teach your kid yourself. turn off the damn t.v.

seriously, what better way to weed out the disinclined to self-fulfillment of knowledge than to make it utterly impossible to find real knowledge anywhere except through personal study, through personal determination for self-betterment?


on a side note, please accept my apologies, as i'm really trying to go through the responses one by one, but have the most horrible 'net connection possible. truthfully, i'm hijacking some neighbor's web access which leaves me completely at the mercy of the weather and the amount of bodies in the room, etc. not to mention my own time restraints due to the bit of a social life that i actually have from time to time


but i'm really trying my best to not ignore anyone!



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   
i am totally with you... especially on the leaving room for nature... i think there might be a couple of NWO camps out there though, one that truly agrees with those 'commandments' and one who just wants power and money

and the majority of mankind is too dumb to deal with the concepts



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustG

People don't starve because there's not enough to go around, they starve because those who are managing world affairs care more about profit then people.

So then, lets retake your example. Lets say you own the boat, and you realize you could save a lot of money by throwing people overboard. For example, you would use less food and water resources and your accountant knows how much you pay for that. Then you have the gas to run that big chugger, who would blame you for wanting to save on gas. Continue on w/ your order of murder as given, and let me know if you can sleep at night agreeing with this.


the first part of your post, i've replied to after a similar post by someone else very recently. it shouldn't be too hard to find.

as to this, however...

this very concept is one of the reasons that i first began to question the general conspiracy theorist view of the nwo.
if you kill off most of the population, there's not much good that a bunch of money (that you created in the first place) is going to do you.
i do understand that the money is only a system of control. still, if it's control you seek, it does no good to exterminate your flock. no dictator wants control just over his bedroom. not even just over his country. he wants control of all of humanity. the more people he controls, the better.

these people already own the world, so what good would it do to kill off billions of people just for the sake of exercising their control?
it doesn't make any sense at all.
sure, a lot of people just scream, "but these are immoral, evil people!"
i just don't buy that as an explanation. however evil or immoral these people may be (or may not be) they are obviously among the most intelligent in the world if they're able to orchestrate civilization in the way that they supposedly have. and it doesn't take too much intelligence to figure out that there's no reason to kill a bunch of people if you already control everyone's lives, especially not if it's just to prove your control..

the entire sentiment is just ridiculous to me.

unless they're actually trying to kill people off because of something that they feel, right or wrong, is necessary.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat

Originally posted by ReelView
I'm not sure where you get the list of attribute/causes of the NWO. Certainly population reduction is one. Beyond that the people that cause all the wars, run all the slavery, the drugs, the legal conspiracy, the disease dissemination and clearly and absolutely hate humanity, can never have noble intentions of any kind. The purported noble causes are nothing but propaganda to deceive their own families and get middle men on board like the media. If you think, anything you might uncover about noble intend underlying the NWO is true you should reconsider.


I think he is getting all of that from the "Georgia Guidestones," which have never been proven to have anything to do with the New World Order.


yes... as i stated originally, this is based off of the georgia guidestones, which are commonly thought among nwo conspiracy theorists to be evidence of the nwo agenda.

if you're some sort of evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) of an nwo agenda, i'd be happy to take a look.


truly, i'm not hear to push my idea. i came across my hypothesis pretty recently and decided to throw it out here so that i can get debate from the other side of the coin - hopefully to learn something.



much thanks to everyone that's responded. i've been forced to think much more about all of this than i normally would have been.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by sliceNodice
I have some advice for anyone who wants to "sympathize" with the NWO.

The age old saying, and it's not age old for no reason; "follow your heart". For if you do just that, you will see that the NWO is of evil intentions, not at all for the betterment of humanity or nature. Murder is murder, no matter how you dress it up kind sir.



while i respect this, as it is a sincere emotional response, i have to ask the same question i've asked multiple times in this post;

if, hypothetically, you had to pick a hundred drowning men out of a thousand which you would save, knowing that any more than 100 would sink your boat, what would you do?

let everyone, yourself included, die because you try to save all of them, despite knowing that it's impossible?

or would you be forced to pick and choose who you would save?

if the latter, how would you choose?


personally, i'd pick the people that are most likely to help the few humans left to survive and flourish.



my heart says that humanity must persevere no matter what, if you want me to directly answer your question



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by oneclickaway
1. There are plenty of resources for everyone, always have been.

although i think it's a moot point, i'll say it again just because i really would be interested in the data, is there any scientific proof of this?

my point, though, is that while there may, indeed, be enough resources, the average human mentality is to have more than the other person. so enough isn't really a question. how do you get 6+ billion people to actually understand what is enough when we have a "family size" section at walmart with 5 gallon jugs of mayonnaise just a few steps away from mcdonalds?


Rather than basing ‘perfection’ on some weird NAZI ideal of physical appearance and health…

no one ever said anything about physical appearance. although, i would have to state that physical appearance (which is almost always synonymous with health, except in the concept of personal taste) goes right along with the amount of procreation happening.
sorry, but it's just in our animal nature to be attracted to the most physically healthy beasts in our neighborhood.



That man who is a so called burden on society may actually be Jesus.

jesus is fictional. but i really can relate to your idea here - i've hitchhiked all over this country, and therefore have spent time in the streets with the homeless across our nation. and, really, i think that i'm a genius compared to the average man...i was even upset with people that treated me like trash when i was a bum. but i had to, and jesus should, understand that you will, reasonably, be associated with your present company.

3. No need for that

no need for cheese, wine, music, art, birth-control, oral pleasantries, friendship, love, air-conditioning, television, coffee, the internet, marriage, etc. but it's nice


Why do you think the world is in the state it is in but for men prizing logic, which is merely an excuse for the inability to feel as it is coming from left brain intellect, not right brain feminine feeling...

if not for logical thinking, the very scientific method would not exist.
the sexist debate, even from a feminist perspective, is still only prejudice.
i agree that there are differences in women and men, but i find it absurd to attribute emotionality and logic to one sex or another.

5. That will never happen while men are governing and the corporations and elite are controlling the money. The whole system has to come crashing down and those sick, greed ridden people need expelling from society…after they have given back what they stole.

whether you realize it or not, if you put these sentences together, you have implied that men, in general, are sick, greed-ridden people that need expelled from society. it's completely logical to assume that men and women can equally govern fair laws and just courts.

6. Never happen while men are governing.

never mind, you obviously do realize the prejudice.

7. At the moment we are headed for total dictatorship unless we resist and throw off the shackles and say NO so loudly that those fools governing realise it‘s game over.

not really an argument against my point here...just an expression of opinion. i'm sorry, i'm not trying to insult, i'm really just looking for debatable content so that i can learn something.
what do you have to back up this statement? i think they'll kill us before that, really.


10. That should have always been the case, but for that to have happened the men controlling would have had to have had some respect and to have FELT and had empathy.

ugh.

you can have empathy if you want. i do. i have empathy for many things...though nature is not really something that poses an empathetic response...

but even without empathy, logic shows us that we have to live in accordance with nature or else we friggin' die. no empathy is needed.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mindmelding

The OP is free to believe and think what he wants, but he should realize that the presuppositions of the Georgia Guidestones are not accepted by all of us.

he realizes, but thank you.



I don't believe we have overpopulation, only missuse of resources, largely because of the psychopathic corporate structure and dysfunctional vertical hierarchies which set the pace for human endeavor. We have the technology to do things right, to harmonize with nature. Most of us have the will. But our economy is run by madmen and stands in the way. And with it stands the body politic and the law. Set us free and we won't destroy the planet.

see above posts for my reply to this question posed by many outside of yourself.

i in no way intend to imply that you, personally, will not, but in general, especially based on what i see from other threads, i just want to say; read the damn thread, people. i'm taking the time to read and respond to everything that's written as far as is possible for me, so, please, if you're going to debate, do the same. it's really annoying to repeat yourself over and again just because someone doesn't want to read.

again, mindmelding, this is not, in any way, directed at you.



I don't believe any person should have the power to decide whether another lives or dies (unless in direct self defense while in threat of their own life or that of another), nor do I believe anyone should decide whether someone breeds or not.

"with great power comes great responsibility."
i hate to quote such a dumb movie, but it really fits here, as i've posed that perhaps these people aren't homicidal maniacs, but are people with a serious weight on their shoulders. see previous posts for explanation.


I don't think there's that much tempered reason in the people proposing themselves as rulers of earth. In fact I think that, per ponerology, they are a psychopathocracy.

clever.

however, i would think that it's obvious that i'm proposing that these people are not the self-appointed rulers of the earth or the all around general evil bastards of satan that we've imagined them to be, but are a handful of people that happen to realize the earth's vulnerability and are trying to help it out whilst, obviously, saving their own damn skins as well because, well, who wouldn't?


As has been said, if the author, or anyone thinking along those lines, wants to make population reduction real, then kindly start with yourselves and get us close to your goals. This would immediately end the debate around excessive population as the idiots who think there is too many of us would remove themselves, leaving the rest of us to live our lives in relative peace.


and, as should have been said a long time ago (forgive me for expecting the obvious) anyone would justifiably fight for their life.

all i said was that if i was drowning as the boat took off then i wouldn't imagine the crew to be the embodiment of satan. just that i'd understand the logic behind the action.

the argument you posed here, to me, is on par with the gullible patriotic american that, upon hearing anything nay-saying about his country says, "if you don't like america, why don't you go live somwhere else and see how it is?!?"

e.g.
"if you think something's better than america then just try living in another country!!!"

or

"if you think that not everyone can live on earth, then just try dieing!!!"


what in the hell does that have to do with anything?

i already said that it'd suck to be in the bottom class (as i am) which would mean that i'm not on the list to be saved.

it's completely ignorant to think that a self-loving individual would commit suicide. i never said that i wouldn't fight for my life. all i said is that i understand the possible agenda of the nwo as is supposedly outlined by the georgia guidestones.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotDogNoBun
reply to post by dalan.
 





Yeah, because the NWO aren't the ones dumbing us down are they? Bush isn't the one who put through the ridiculous legislation for "No Child left behind" is he? They aren't the one who fluoridate our water for our "teeth" are they? We haven't been completely socialized and indoctrinated by Hollywood drivel have we?



You see it is just this attitude displayed in your post that leads me to believe that a NWO would be good for the world. The fact that people give up all personal responsibility and turn and blame their problems on everyone and everything but themselves.

1. If you dont like the education your children are getting either send them to private school, homeschool them, or take time after public school to teach them what they are missing. It is your responsiblity to educate yourself and your children, not the government.

2. If you fear the water then filter it.

3. If you think your mind is so easily controlled by outside sources then dont watch TV or movies or read books.


[edit on 16-8-2009 by HotDogNoBun]


Personal responsibility? I don't think that I would be on ATS if I hadn't taken responsibility for my own education. What I was trying to say is that, the OP believes that people are just generally uneducated and a New World Order would somehow change that. He wants to side with the people causing most of our problems. If people were educated, perhaps they would understand that?



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by HotDogNoBun
 



3. If you think your mind is so easily controlled by outside sources then dont watch TV or movies or read books.


The term is called socialization, and it has more to do with the attitudes towards life that are fostered into people by their cultures. American culture has its own values, morals, and ethics...many of which are given to us by systems of manipulation. I am not saying that my mind is easily controlled, I do not watch television because it is 100% indoctrination.

And who owns most television networks?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join