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.
Originally posted by m khan
Wait a minute. We may be outnumbered by the 6.7 billion world population, but not too many of those people are on the side of the New World Order. In fact most of them are on our side.
They don't want war in Afghanistan or Iraq either. And their governments are being bullied. Their governments got conned into taking big loans from the IMF,
which the US taxpayers are regullarly bailing out to keep the interest money flowing to the banksters. Their governments have been corrupted by our government's New World Order people. If America refused to play ball with them, just watch the domino effect.
Does it count if your personal plan is to sieze control of the one world government through a lightning strike take over just as they are consolidating their grip on the entire planet and to set your self up as dictator for life in the process?
I love this planet, do you know it has pizza and strip clubs!
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Does it count if your personal plan is to sieze control of the one world government through a lightning strike take over just as they are consolidating their grip on the entire planet and to set your self up as dictator for life in the process?
Originally posted by m khan
It may seem to be headed that direction but I think the American people are capable of heading it off.
Originally posted by jam321
Let the dogs loose.
Like I said, not popular.
Well, I though it was the Rockefellers and friends, but was recently reading about the CFR, which started as a roundtable of Fabian Socialist School of Economics, designed to scuttle America to help the British Empire. Now I think it may be a combination of Rockefeller and friends and the European nobility. They are the one's who brought Hitler to power and love murder and hate mankind. I think the English made a big mistake letting their nobility stay in power. They are the ones who think they have a hereditary right to rule. Maybe throw in some satanists from Bohemian grove and the Pope and the higher level Masons.
Originally posted by SLAYER69
[
Do you realize who is running many of their Governments? When Obama gave the state of the Union and pretty much laid out how bad the Situation was in the US the Bankers, The financiers didn't bat an eye. Look at what happened to the EU and Euro with the Greece deal.
which the US taxpayers are regullarly bailing out to keep the interest money flowing to the banksters. Their governments have been corrupted by our government's New World Order people. If America refused to play ball with them, just watch the domino effect.
Do you know who runs the NWO? Don't you realize that the only real chance is to work from within. The game has already been played, the chess pieces have been moved into place.
Originally posted by LadySkadi
Personally, not sure that one-world govt. is necessarily a bad thing.
I do also agree with others who believe it is mostly in place, at present.
I have yet to be convinced that (a) this design could be stopped and (b) that it will be a bad or worse situation than what is currently in place.
Source
Western leaders and commentators pinned the blame for the Copenhagen fiasco on China and, to a lesser extent, India. This is hard to fathom. Like China, the U.S. came not to negotiate but to sign an agreement on its terms. Both were equally constrained by domestic growth requirements and political compulsions.
The scattergun information noise from western countries has obscured their culpability in refusing to honour Kyoto and Bali pledges, instead pointing a collective finger at developing countries' rejection of binding emission cuts. The latter blame the West's past industrialization for the present crisis. Westerners highlight present and future growth in energy consumption by China and India as the main factors taking us to and beyond the tipping point. Developed countries talk of net national emissions, developing countries of per capita emissions. In some respects the West is effectively "outsourcing" its pollution to China as the world's factory. Multinationals set up business in China which produces goods for western consumers and pollution for Chinese cities.
On another front, soft power is a complement to hard power, not its substitute. Major media voices from the globally dominant powers wield matching international influence. Waning hard power shrinks soft power, including media influence.
Last fall, the New York Times told Manmohan Singh to resist calls for more nuclear tests which "would be a huge setback -- for India's relations with Washington, for the battle against terrorists, and for global efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons." It advised India to focus on economic growth, not more nuclear weapons, and urged Washington to "leave no doubt about how much India would have to lose if New Delhi makes the wrong choice."
Nelson Mandela reportedly said that the terms of a struggle are usually set not by the challengers but by the dominant elite whose power, status, privileges and authority are under assault.
Equally, once the aspiring new members are inside the club, they too must adapt their behaviors and accept the burden of shared management of a fragile world order.
Originally posted by LadySkadi
There will not be an end to war.
Did everyone forget their Economics courses?
Supply and Demand. Limited resources for unlimited need or want.
They who control the resources, control everything.
It's really very simple. Deceivingly so, apparently.
_________________
ETA: "war" = technological, economical and militaristic.
[edit on 2-3-2010 by LadySkadi]