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 most ATS members will never fight the NWO: you are all talk

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+28 more 
posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 11:20 AM
I would apologize for the rudeness of the title…but it really does not matter in the long run, does it?

A book was published called “On Combat” by Lt Col Dave Grossman, the book was a psychological look at war, soldiers and civilians. Although written by Grossman the book is composed of numerous studies conducted by Universities, the military and historical writings.

As a military Police Officer I have been to Iraq , Kuwait once, and only spent 3 months in Afghanistan and recently got out of the military to begin higher education. I can testify that the book indeed DOES cover many factual occurrences that happen in combat/aggressive situations.

Many of you say you will fight the NWO, you will Rebel or you will be aggressive in some way to fight for freedom……..THIS IS FALSE. Your heart is willing, but your body is unable……let me explain.

One of the simplest things it comes down to is Phobias. So what is a Phobia,

PHOBIA: an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear

Ok so it is not uncommon for a person to have a Phobia, either of flying or spiders but the reason that you will never aggressively fight the NWO is because there is a lesser spoken about phobia that 98% of the entire human species has.
Allow me to borrow a scenario from the book to demonstrate.

Let’s say you have a room with 100 people in it, all facing the front as if waiting for a presentation. Now if somebody were to walk into that room and dump a box full of snakes on the floor, you would see multitude of reactions. Some people would laugh, some people would jump onto chairs, some people would even try to pick them up….but a small number of people would have a Phobic Reaction; their heartbeat would increase dramatically, their vision would begin to blur, their sense of hearing would become distorted and perhaps uncontrollable shakes would ensue. This is a phobic reaction. Lets talk about the scenario that means more to this conversation.

Let’s say we have the same room with 100 people. But instead of snakes, a man walks in front of the room, pulls out a gun and shoots a person in the head. In this situation 98% of all people in the room will have a phobic reaction, your hands will shake, your vision will blur and you will be useless in the fight.
This is why all you “militant” anti NWO guys and gals will do nothing, because only 2% of all the creatures on Earth will run towards gunfire and the chances are you are not one of them.

Who is? Well active and inactive members of military groups, police, mercenaries’, etc. Not anti government guys with aggressive tendencies typing about how much of a coward I was because I went to Iraq.

I KNOW I am part of the 2%......are you?

This is serious question, if you are wrong you could be killed.
If you really think an evil empire will take over, there is a 98% chance you will be killed JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN IN COMBAT BEFORE. End of story. No rude comebacks, no insulting sarcasm, you can say what ever you want and the fact is you wont cut it.

I have seen men like you all over the world, and guess what; you get arrested or dead. So unless you are a real soldier, part of the real 2% don't even bother responding to this aggressively because we can sniff you out and you bore us.

On a serious note though, there are a number of methods to "hardening" your mind that can help significantly, I will post them in a bit. I hope you understand I had to drive the point on this intro.

*yet another edit (eventually I will make one thread without all these spelling errors)
*Had to edit, somebody thought it would be funny to hack my thread.
[edit on 18-3-2010 by hyperion.martin]

[edit on 18-3-2010 by hyperion.martin]

[edit on 18-3-2010 by hyperion.martin]

+54 more 
posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 11:32 AM
This is a very interesting point, and one that I think, while exaggerated, is very relevant.

I do not believe that only 2% of people would not have a phobic reaction in a combat situation(although I do think the number would be low), and I'll tell you why.

If you are simply standing in a building and someone walks in, shoots someone in the head, and then starts barking orders at everyone, that is not a true example of a combat situation. That is a hostage situation. The people were not prepared. The people are not armed. The people are caught completely off-guard, which is why 98% would react like that.

Now, as far as true combat goes:
In a true combat situation, one will be armed. One will have some inkling that something is coming(outside of perhaps the very first incident). One will have an objective, and will enter the situation with that objective.

In a true combat situation, sure, someone can get caught off guard. But there is a difference between knowing that there is a very good chance that a firefight is coming, and having no idea, whatsoever, that it could possibly happen.

Just my .02.......

[edit on 18-3-2010 by captaintyinknots]

posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 11:55 AM
I can agree with this to an extent. What you say would be true in the beginning of a "take over" so to speak. The first time you see a bullet pierce someone's flesh, it can be a frightening even body numbing experience. That goes the same for witnessing a car wreck for the first time, or even being in one for the first time. What you failed to mention, as did the book probably, is that people adapt to the situation. When you've seen a few people shot, you aren't surprised by it anymore, same things goes with seeing repeated car wrecks. You were in the military, but you weren't always that way. So at one time, you were just like every phobic crazed civilian until you starting seeing what combat is all about. You don't need to be in the military to witness "combat situations", living in a gang infested neighborhood is can put the civilian in harms way everyday.

When a hostage situation occurs, the ones being held are going to do what the gunman (gunmen) tell them to do. But if it were to drag on for days, even weeks, with hunger taking over, the fear begins to go away, and a part of the individual will come out and more than one person will begin to fight off the gunman. We don't really see much of this because hostage situations don't typically drag on for too long. My point is that because those that aren't used to witnessing combat, or violent situations, will freeze up in the beginning. People will rise up when they have been pushed enough. It's just easy to portray the average citizen as weak and helpless. Never underestimate people, you never know who will rise to the occasion.

posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 11:55 AM
Im a lover not fighter maaaaan. I have no combat skills whatsoever, I try my best to "stick it to the man " in my own ways, but when the firm hand of the law comes down, all the fighting in the world aint gonna save you.

An example, I went to the G20 protests in London last year. Wanted to leave after a few hours, but the police kettled everyone into a narrow street for 6 hours, no access to water or a toilet. There is no way you are going to take on riot police who are armed with batons and god knows what else.

posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 11:56 AM
Oh, I know how I would react to a sudden SHTF senario...and most over the age of say...30 know also if they give a few moments thought

on september 11th, 2001, I was preparing for work, thinking myself quite the man..I just got back to the US and figured since I walked around the world, some areas being rather dangerous, I was pretty strong.

Heard something was going on in new york and seen the undergoing terrorist attacks. as things got worse and worse, hearing about flights all over the place going down..pentagon, some random crash in penn, etc...I just remember being stunned. sitting on the floor, unable to even think coherently...completely mesmerized by the horror playing out.

And that moment of terror wasn't even close to where I was physically at...I cant imagine how it would feel to suddenly find myself in the middle of a literal warzone...I know I am not mentally up to par, and chances are, the enemy wont give me a pass for the first few battles to harden up.

The amusing thing is, I personally feel I am more prepared than most of the weekend warriors...because I know my weakness, I know my fears, and I know how I will react in a real know your weakness is a step towards being able to master them.

I however prefer to fight the NWO by voting and talking, and trying to command any new world to be made by us verses by "them".

posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 11:57 AM
reply to post by hyperion.martin

I think you are right, Most people on here won’t do anything at first, but after a while they can be "coaxed" into a fight...

You being in Iraq (as well as myself) know that some people don’t want to fight but when you prod them, ( IE dropping bombs on wedding parties, holding honest men in prison, etc) they will strike back.

Now as far as your 2% number, it could be right but there are different variables to it... Now if I hear gun fire and I am unarmed I take cover and move to where I can obtain a gun. However if I am armed and I am hear gun fire , I will take cover and move to the target. It again will change if I have small children or people who are non-combatants with me... I would seek cover move my principals to safety and react accordingly. But if I am near the firefight I may have to engage in hand to hand combat if the timing and situation are right...

My point is there are many variables to the equation on if someone will fight back or not when face with extrodainry circumstances such as an occupation or an NWO type.

posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 11:58 AM
Even very brave and well trained militia will be very challenged, if faced with the military might of cluster bombs, predator drones and other military gadgets.

Not every fight is fought with guns and violence. Gandhi and other have shown, that other forms of resistance can be powerful as well. Showing no fear, when confronted with violence needs courage and training. A different kind of courage is needed to be the first to raise your voice and speak against injustice or question authority. Each person, who finds the courage and speaks out his true feelings encourages others to do the same. So, everyone can help against the manipulations of TPTB. The largest part in the fight against TBTB is the battle of competing information. Spreading information and encouraging others to do the same is important as well.

[edit on 18-3-2010 by Drunkenshrew]

posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 11:58 AM
My only concern is the notion that violent resistance is the only means to combat anything.

Taking up arms is a right which despite political elite's desires otherwise can not be simply 'erased' from the minds of those who seek comfort in the protections given by the 'official' declaration of inalienable rights.

I am in the school of thought that believes that to be a defensive right, although once this path is chosen, it will be difficult to define what is and isn't defensive. Any government will view such resistance as a form of insurgency; as by definition it is.

However, fighting the NWO is not restricted to pelting officers and soldiers with rocks and epitaphs (or worse).

It is possible to resist otherwise, especially if the national will is such that we can lay claim to the same strength as Ghandi once asserted to his colonial superiors... (paraphrasing here)

"It is simply impossible for a few thousand to rule over hundreds of millions, if those hundreds of millions refuse to allow it."

All talk? I wish it could be done via talk alone... but that hasn't worked out too well thus far..., however leaping from talk to gunfights is a bit extreme.

Taking for granted that the NWO is a real threat, and they are not faliling about in 'autothrash' mode trying to regain their footing, I think the next step for citizens is not violence.

Our next course of action outside of 'talk' should be civil disobedience.

Since the establishment (for lack of a better word describing the corchestrated control of populations at a supranational level) controls a huge portion of popular media and common mediums "talk" is increasingly marginalized, and civil disobedience will inevitably be categorized as "anti-social crime."

A certain amount of courage will be required... but I doubt that it will be taken to the life and death struggle to which the more zealous and outspoken generally allude.

But one never knows, and your assessment may be quite true, especially if one's livelihood and ability to provide for health and welfare can be compromised or threatened by an establishment set on removing personal and national sovereignty from the factors limiting their dominion.

[edit on 18-3-2010 by Maxmars]

posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 11:59 AM

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Im a lover not fighter maaaaan. I have no combat skills whatsoever, I try my best to "stick it to the man " in my own ways, but when the firm hand of the law comes down, all the fighting in the world aint gonna save you.

An example, I went to the G20 protests in London last year. Wanted to leave after a few hours, but the police kettled everyone into a narrow street for 6 hours, no access to water or a toilet. There is no way you are going to take on riot police who are armed with batons and god knows what else.

I saw those riots, you people had numbers over the police a unified charge would have broken the police lines, (only temporary mind you) but that would have been enough time for you to get out of dodge.

posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 12:02 PM
I don't see any reason in taking up arms against a foe that is barely tangible. I'll do it when the complete threat and the people behind it are revealed.

I still have some doubts.

But at the same time if others started fighting I'd consider joining. It would really take an organised movement to get me interested though.

posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 12:11 PM
reply to post by hyperion.martin

I understand what you are saying
how ever i do not agree with it

Peaceful revolution no more people need to die

posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 12:13 PM
Having a military background myself there is one thing I learned on Paris Island... Almost anyone can learn to train and desensitize themselves to what they may face... Now there is a HUGE difference between training and the actual thing, something I leaned when I hit the ground in Fallujah, but when certain situations arrived that I had "trained" for I was able think much clearer after doing dry runs and preparing for the worst. Your right that your typical civilian would have no clue what to do AT FIRST, but with proper training and desensitizing I feel we can prepare ourselves for almost any situation...
Remember there is a first time for everything and you can't prepare for all situations but what you do prepare for, you will be much better suited to deal with that situation if/when the time arises...

posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Maxmars
All talk? I wish it could be done via talk alone... but that hasn't worked out too well thus far...,[edit on 18-3-2010 by Maxmars]

Actually, it works out brilliantly:

The Velvet Revolution

On November 17, 1989, a Friday, riot police suppressed a peaceful student demonstration in Prague. That event sparked a series of popular demonstrations from November 19 to late December. By November 20 the number of peaceful protesters assembled in Prague had swollen from 200,000 the previous day to an estimated half-million. A two-hour general strike, involving all citizens of Czechoslovakia, was held on November 27.

With the collapse of other Warsaw Pact governments and increasing street protests, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia announced on November 28 that it would relinquish power and dismantle the single-party state. Barbed wire and other obstructions were removed from the border with West Germany and Austria in early December. On December 10, President Gustáv Husák appointed the first largely non-communist government in Czechoslovakia since 1948, and resigned. Alexander Dubček was elected speaker of the federal parliament on December 28 and Václav Havel the President of Czechoslovakia on December 29, 1989.

In June 1990 Czechoslovakia held its first democratic elections since 1946.

+13 more 
posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 12:20 PM
Fighting the New World Order ?

You mean literally fighting, as in an Anti-NWO army ?

Who believes that's going to happen ?

How could it happen, if we accept this New World Order as being the weft and warp of our daily lives ?

Does anyone believe the New World Order will be an organised, armed, fighting-force which will sweep into towns and cities, weapons raised ?

Isn't the NWO a conspiracy ? Isn't the media one of the primary weapons of the NWO ?

NWO --- compromised education system ?

NWO --- compromised medical industry ?

NWO --- Big Pharma ? Big Business ?

NWO --- corrupted military, police, legal fraternity ?

NWO --- blackmailed puppet-politicians ?

NWO --- everywhere ... like smoke ? Raise your hand. Point your finger at the NWO so you can prove it exists to your sceptic-neighbour. Can't ? Why ?

NWO. There it is ! Look, neighbour ! See it ? See that seeing-eye logo in that commercial ? See it working the strings of that rock-star ? See it in the story-line of that movie, that tv-show, that video-clip ?

Oh come on, neighbour ! Why can't you see it ? It's all around you ! Open your eyes ! ..... Hey, come back ! Why are you giving me that crazy look ? Why are you hurrying away ?

You pick up your gun and run down the street, trying to warn everyone that if they don't shoulder their guns too and fight this enemy, this NWO, then it will be too late

And they lock you up. They medicate you. They pronounce you schizophrenic and 'highly disturbed' ... too much of a danger to yourself and others to be allowed to roam free

7 billion people. Who wants to fight 7 billion people ?

Who has the numbers or even the intent to take on 7 billion --- or even one billion -- in armed combat ?

How many are member of the armed forces, worldwide ? Anyone know ?

Add in the combined world's police forces. Still amounts to a hand-full when compared with 7 billion

And even if they tossed nukes at every capital city, world-wide, they'd still be confronted with billions of survivors and injured and dead and dying

Logistical nightmare. The NWO isn't interested in playing nurse and parent to one or five billion shocked and disorientated dependents who all need food, medicine and somewhere to lie down

They want power, control and profit

The farmer doesn't go out and kill his herds. That would be stupid. Instead, he kills a few and sells their carcass. He milks others. Takes the eggs from more. Encourages them to keep breeding and producing

Sure, he might limit their freedom. He might feed them less. He might push them to produce more from less. He might hold a stick over their heads or beat or kill a few to persuade the rest that it would be in their best interests to obey him

The animals might whisper to each other, ' It's no good protesting. All the farmers are the same these days. There's nowhere left to run. If we run, they'll just shoot us down. We'd better all just keep our heads down, do as we're told and give them what they want. It's ok for a few of the bulls to talk about stampede, but I have young ones to think of '

After a while, the animals will probably say to each other, ' It's not so bad, once you stop fighting and accept it. As long as we do as we're told and keep on churning out a profit for the masters, they allow you to exist. If you just numb yourself and don't allow yourself to think about alternatives to this way of life, it's tolerable '

Boiling the frog

As to those leaders, those bulls who spoke of freedom --- they're forgotten. They were slaughtered and turned into hot-dogs so long ago, people can't even remember what they were so fired-up about

posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 12:23 PM
I just looked up "Boiling the frog", I'm new around here and had never heard that analogy, but reading about it..... GENIUS...

posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 12:26 PM
For some people, the masking of emotional response is easier then others. This can be based upon a multitude of things ranging from their upbringing, to events that have occurred in their life, to their own mental conditioning.

Allow me to tell you why I WILL fight and I am not all talk.

I am a student of history. I can look back on the United States and the world in general and see the progressive downfall as it occurred. I see patterns, I see history repeating itself, yet I see mankind never learning from that mistake. I see an ideal world where those mistakes provide the lessons that they were meant to and where truth is a reality, not just an ideal.

My goal is freedom - true freedom. Not just for me, but for everyone. That is my goal and thus my mind will remain upon the end result. I have stared in the eyes of death more than once and I do not fear it, therefore, I walk forward with a purpose and without the weights of emotion bogging me down.

Do not get me wrong, my emotion still resides within my soul, however, I an many others have found their own personal way to shut it down when need be.

But I am not stupid. I would not plan to face an enemy head on, one which outnumbers us, one which has learned more than us, and one that has greater firepower. Many would believe that might and numbers make the victor on the battlefield - this was the belief of generals that never saw their history come to pass. Intelligence and strategy win the war and if you have enough, even just one man can take out an entire army.

I will fight. I have nothing to lose. These material things that surround me mean nothing. This paper that people use to trade with, to me, means nothing. To me, without freedom we have nothing, and thus there is nothing to lose.

The more people that realize this the more you will realize that even the most "common" of man has the ability to fight when the time comes.

posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 12:32 PM
reply to post by gwydionblack

But Gwydion, your idea of freedom might be my idea of hell

Your freedom might impose on my freedom

Your version of freedom might include wearing a knife and gun as you sleep on your porch and could lead to my believing you were curtailing my freedom

Your freedom might include driving at 100 mph down my street. I might not like that and decide to curtail your freedoms on temporary or permanent basis

Israel's freedom seems to be depriving Palestinians of their freedom

and so on

Maybe freedom to roam and shoot at will was fine 100 years ago, before others seeking freedom decided to settle and fence their land

Human freedoms have resulted in many animals losing theirs

You see ?

posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 12:42 PM
reply to post by Dock9

Oh I do see, however, I consider my "definition" of freedom in much higher regard than to curtail on others.

Freedom to me is being able to do anything you want to do as long as does not impose on the freedoms of another.

As you said, this could lead to curtailing, however, that is why you need an understanding of rights and thus is why I believe so strongly in the Bill of Rights. It is simply a piece of paper that reminds us of what are rights as living, breathing organisms are. Yes, there is some bias in them however, they were created in a way in which peace and individuality could prosper at the same time.

If I drive 100 mph down a road, it shouldn't concern you, for I am not hurting you, it should not be a crime. If I drive 100 mph down a road, and hit your or a family member, than I have infringed upon your rights to freedom and should be prosecuted for it.

Thanks to the prosecution, it becomes general knowledge that one should not drive 100 mph or they may face the consequences and people learn they should not be on or let their children play on a road in which people might drive 100 mph.

Too much today is focused on preventing crime and thus people get in trouble for not actually doing anything and thus their rights are restricted. Thus nobody learns from their mistakes and thus we can not evolve from that structure.

posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 12:52 PM
I think a man's background plays a huge part. For instance, take a guy that was raised in a city. He attended the same school his whole life, went to college, got a degree, then a desk job. His parents were very protective and upperclass. This man was never around firearms, never got into fist fights, never physically challenged himself, or found himself in precarious situations where he had to think fast to survive, or not be harmed.
That type of man will have phobias, and fear death in most instances.

Now take a man that was raised in the country. He grew up hunting and fishing and sleeping outdoors. His parents were always fighting. He got into fights at school, and was constantly moved around from school to school cause he came from a broken home. He didn't go to college, but dropped out of highschool, or went straight from highschool to a hard construction job. He faced alot of adversity. He worked jobs like carpenter, commercial fisherman, logger, etc. He got into trouble with the law and did his fair share of drugs. He found himself in many precarious situations and learned to think fast on his feet to survive, as well as control his fear and never back down. And although he may have never been to actual war,
this man will have no phobias if it ever came time to bear arms and fight to the death.
I'm a member of the latter club, but unfortunately this club has found it's members have diminished considerably as of late.

[edit on 18-3-2010 by Romans 10:9]

posted on Mar, 18 2010 @ 01:05 PM
reply to post by gwydionblack

Too much today is focused on preventing crime and thus people get in trouble for not actually doing anything and thus their rights are restricted. Thus nobody learns from their mistakes and thus we can not evolve from that structure.

Maybe if you looked at it from another's perspective ?

In other posts, from memory, you've said you're young and are not a parent ... so you're going to have to exercise your imagination here for a moment or two. Alternatively, you could postpone your consideration until later, when you are a parent

But, either way, let's say it's Gwydion's kids who're innocently playing in their yard one sunny day when a guy decides to exercise his freedoms by downing a few beers and taking his car for a spin to test his new burbly muffler

Ooops ! Screeching. Fence smashed. Blood. And kiddies' toys crushed beyond recognition. It was all so fast ! How did it happen ?

No-one will ever know, although the tow-trucks and police and insurance investigators and paramedics would be able to hazard a good guess

Won't matter to Gwydion though. He'll be too sunk in despair after burying his children to care. The driver will be tried and will do some jail time. Maybe he'll learn, maybe not. If not, as soon as he's released, he'll get busy exercising his freedoms again, as soon as he has enough money for more beer and another car

Laws are usually written after an event ... or six. It's sometimes called 'learning from past experience'. Sometimes it's called 'predictability'. At other times, it's called closing the gate after the horses have bolted. I've even heard it called 'pre-emptive strike'

Whatever the case, laws are written to protect the majority, to protect the rights of the majority

Except, each of those who comprise the majority has his/her own version of 'freedom'

But hey, you can't please all the people all of the time

You can say you would never allow your freedoms to impinge upon mine, but you'd be setting yourself a difficult task, don't you think ?

I mean, what if you decided your freedoms included holding a noisy party until 3 a.m. ?

You might not consider your party to be noisy. But your neighbours might disagree with you. Which is why in most places, there's a curfew as far as noise goes ... usually you're supposed to keep it down after 11.30 p.m

You might believe your freedoms include tuning your car in your driveway. Again, your neighbours might believe you are disturbing their peace and depriving them of the freedom to enjoy living in their own homes without the necessity to wear ear-plugs

You might believe your freedoms include walking around naked, but others might believe you to be a blight on the neighbourhood and may believe the sight of your nakedness has destroyed their children's eyesight

All this and more is why we have laws and why people are required to obey them or suffer the consequences

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in