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.

 

Why I don't fear the NWO.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I have since long been interested in the idea of that a goup, with both money and power, are controlling the world, or at least trying to. In theory (as far as I can see), this is logical.

But what I can not see, is that so many people think that the New World Order, steered by the Illuminati, is imminent.

For example, the only things I've read so far is Militia-type of people who fear that their guns are going to be confiscated. This, alongside the 9/11 incident.

Why use planes? Why not detonate the lowest levels, and then blaming it on these militia-types? Why Arabs? Why the war on terror?

This can be a very interesting debate.




posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 09:40 AM
link   
The theory of an NWO is an interesting one.

Personally, though, I don't believe that any collection of governments, or indeed any organisation, would have the resources or competence to implement the sort of NWO that is spoken of here.

Anyone who has ever worked in government, or for any company, or served on a committee of any type, will have seen how in-fighting, internal politics, egos and vested interests make agreement and consensus rare on even modest aims. Just imagine those obstacles magnified by about a million times and you'll see how difficult it would be for an NWO to be established.

The only way an NWO could be implemented is by one ruthless dictator, not by a committee or cabal of senior-level conspirators.



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Yes, exactly. I've tried to find a "solution" for the problem, but the only thing so far is that all members of the Illuminati are hardcore believers of some kind of religion, that they are bent to follow.

I've also thought about the possibility of Illuminati being a part of a disinformation campaign. For example, Majestic 12 use the Illuminati thing to cover themselves. But what good would this do, since people will still think that there is some kind of a secret society.

Also, do mind that Christian churches did oppress both the Illuminati and the Freemasons, at what time Germany was called Bavaria. Hitler killed lots of masons too. There is no logic in the whole thing. Are they communists, or fascists? Do they discuss or do they follow one leader? Etc.



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Arcane religion must be the motivation and religious motivation for extreme acts never makes sense - all of the main religions in their purest form basically say the same thing yet people throughout history have been, and still are, happy to kill each other over what are really pretty semantic differences between their belief systems.

The other big problem I have with NWO theory, in addition to the practical and human-nature factors alread mentioned, is what's in it for them?

If the alleged conspirators are already wealthy and powerful they aren't going to want to put that at risk in a big gamble to found an NWO. Someone will have to have overall control, and what happens if it isn't them?

Also, the bedrock of wealth and power is the economy. In simple terms, a world economy relies on competition between countries, or trading blocks, to exist. So one world order = no economic growth = no increase in power and wealth.

It is some comfort to know that in a world where awesome super-powers can't even maintain law and order in a virtually third world state the prospect of an enforced NWO is pretty damn unlikely.



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Because they don't exist???

That's my first thought.



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Because they don't exist? Eh, well, after all these years, there isn't a single note or anything supporting the theory that they exist.


JAK

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Can't remember who said it originally, but... "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

[edit on 12-6-2004 by JAK]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join