There is no NWO!!!

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 04:19 AM
link   
OMG there really isn't!

Our world today is what is called an "anarchic system of soveriegn states".

Well what does that mean?

Basically it means, each state is soveriegn and there is no higher authority, it's basically America before the Civil War when Calhoun was arguing that the States had the right to "Nullify" Congress and the federal government.

The reason our world looks so moderated and "controlled" is two-fold.

1) The most known nations are democratic and therefore not spontaneous and not suicidal.

2) Most of the wars in the world occur in the non-democratic world which is much of the 3rd world. And no one pays attention to them.

There have been more than 140 wars since WW2, and more than 15 million people have died in these wars. Most wars are wars of ethnic cleansing.

A good example is Rwanda, wow where was the NWO then? 8,000 people killed a day by machetes, for 100 days.

That's 800,000 people killed by big knives. Have you any idea what that looks like?

Where was the NWO then?

If the Britts really hated the US they could attack it tomorrow, no one is stopping them. The problem is the public, people are not always in agreement.

This is why the nations most likely to go to war are those lead by one man. WW2 and WWI are prime examples.

Today the great powers don't go to war because of Nuclear Weapons and their democratic involvement.

But this does not mean they are controlled by higher powers...self-preservation is all, and so a nation will not just barge into war after war.

Now to really put the nail in the coffin.

The largest argument for the NWO is no one knows about it, well if no one knows...that means only one thing. That the NWO leaders are manipulating natural events to their favor. Natural as in, a nation won't go to war because nuclear holocaust might be the result. So basically people such as yourselves, are saying that what is natural is actually governed by some unseen force.

Hmm I know something else like that.

Orthodox Catholics, especially those in the 1400s who believed God created the lightning and the volcanos and the earth-quakes.

I believe in a God, but not in a God that "manipulates nature"...God is nature.

Well in this case the NWO therefore has to be nature too.

After all if all the NWO does is natural then why do they do anything? If they did anything unnatural you could observe its affects as raw manipulation or power over another.

I think honestly, the loss of God in our society is why people turn to such fantasies as Aliens and the NWO.

They are no different in concept than God, they are just different scientifically: NWO is human and Aliens are technologically possible.

So the Godless have found their replacement for God.

This thread involves a lot of things...and most information was left out for ease of writing, so just feel free to comment and I'll further ellaborate.

I'm sure those not dillusional however will see my basic strong points.




posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Could not agree more. Like you say, a lot left out for sure, but one must begin somewhere. Just because there are ruthless, money-obsessed, thieving, lying criminals about, that doesn't make them a NWO, nor does it not.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 04:40 AM
link   
But when it comes down to it there is a small group of people who are manipulating world events, controlling them for their own agendas. The NWO is just an exaggerated version of this. I still believe that overall power falls down to a handful of people.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Yes, I'm more inclined to believe and worry about the dangers of globalisation and the implmentation of a type of new world order from this direction than from governments.

The danger is from the multi-national companies who are working to ensure that our financial security is eroded from all directions by pulling out of pension schemes, outsourcing and exporting as many jobs as possible to sweat-shops in the third world. The ultimate result of this will be lower wages, no financial security, longer hours and a poor standard of living for everyone under company director level.

The danger of an enslaved world population comes from the corporates not from sovereign states.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Valid points harris johns. The corporations have already enslaved so many in the third world; without unions, awful pay, terrible conditions. I doubt that the sweatshops will spread though. Maybe when the west collapses economically and the third world becomes powerful things will swap around .



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Totally agree. From the day we left our agrarian societies for "progress", the icy hand of the New World Order was guiding us, waiting to close around our throats!!

No NWO? Ha! You can't trust anyone. Or so I'm told.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Good to hear your view on the NWO 'FreeMason'.

I guess the only way to prove you wrong is to prove that the NWO do exist which i cant do and i dont think anyone can prove its existance.

In my personal oppinion i do think to a certain degree there is a group above Bush which he may be part of whihc collabrate with some other top world rulers around the world or who have great infulence and do make opinions and perhaps infulence the way in which the world is run.

Rynaldo



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   
The NWO, just like religion, is a belief system stemming from an innate tendency in most people to fear a lack of order. People need order in their lives to be able to live happily (as evidences by the abundance of clocks, calenders, planners, and other time planning devices). Claiming everything that happens in the world is governed by a secret NWO fits societies belief that everything has an order to it. People cannot deal with the concept of disorder. Religion serves the same purpose.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf
The NWO, just like religion, is a belief system stemming from an innate tendency in most people to fear a lack of order. People need order in their lives to be able to live happily (as evidences by the abundance of clocks, calenders, planners, and other time planning devices). Claiming everything that happens in the world is governed by a secret NWO fits societies belief that everything has an order to it. People cannot deal with the concept of disorder. Religion serves the same purpose.


Very good point CutWolf. Especially about the control and order such as callenders clocks etc. I guess its fair to assume the same with armies and police etc and then the microchip and id card etc. its like a scale moving up and up and some will disagree and some might say yes.

Rynaldo



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   
One word: 'Bilderburg'





Need Truth



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeedTruth
One word: 'Bilderburg'

Need Truth


here's a few more words:
committee of 300
bohemian grove
council on foreign relations
world wildlife fund
center for disease control
FEMA
world trade organization(WTO)
international monetary fund
the federal reserve
the round table


most these bodies have the power to override the laws of nations due to contract law.
so, yes virginia, there is a NWO. (OWN backwords)



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 01:35 PM
link   
lol freemason your still here
havent seen u in a while



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
My perception is that the "NWO" of the "anarchic system of soveriegn states" is the International Monetary Fund. The success of countries, especially less-wealthy ones is dependent on their loans. The IMF's policies on loans are somewhat strict as to how industry occurs in the countries that will receive them. I also point out to you NAFTA, Pacific Free Trade Agreement, and the EU. The EU, as I have recently found out, is attempting to expand its powers from the economic basis. The three major corporations/governments are England, France, and Germany; together their influence can overrule other nations decisions with the EU.

As well, you say:


Basically it means, each state is soveriegn and there is no higher authority, it's basically America before the Civil War when Calhoun was arguing that the States had the right to "Nullify" Congress and the federal government.


I will use the NEW EU as a correlation between the US before the civil war and the current status of the EU. The EU is not only an economic pact now, but has begun to "Centralize" treaties so as to protect the countries of Europe from invasion as well, just as the fed gov of the US protected the states. Before the civil war, the states were allowed to cecede, and in the EU the countries are allowed to cecede through a lengthy legal process.

Now look at what happened to the US after the Civil War of state cessation. That is where I see the roots of the NWO, history repeating itself my friend.

Oh, oh, oh, I couldn't help point out something else. Although similarities between the book 1984 and our future is widely disputed, I think it interesting that there are 3 major economic pacts (The EU turning into a little bit more than that!) and 3 countries at war at all times in 1984...evolution of a war on terror perhaps?

[edit on 17-6-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Well, the NWO is surely a debated topic. I think there are a NWO. But I don't think there are one. Confused, well...

I usually rule out the concept that people are controlled by only one group. This group could be a form of the Illuminati, which, in essence, controls the world not to "take it over", but to improve it, making it better.

But why all the conflicts? Why all these troops and the war on terror?

Some say it's all in one. I say that there are people who disagree with each other. Even in Nazi Germany, where the Germans believed that only Hitler had full control, didn't have full control. As some of you may recall, Heinrich Himmler started to make his own agendas and had his fingers in pies Hitler would never consider, like for example, the "peace offer" with the allies (trading a group of Jews for his escape or something like that).

So, if this little superpower couldn't get it right, how could the supposed cruel rulers of the world get everything right, supposedly agree on everything, and at the same time, ensuring not a bit of information or any kind of material suggesting "its" existance, to be released?

And not only Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union too. And probably many other fascist nations, past and present.

On the other hand, what does exist is the fact that people in groups, or induviduals by themselves, do strive for power. Money are being traded behind the back of the general public. People do these kind of stuff. We have always done it, in one way or another.

And even if the NWO would mean a small group with very powerful men and women, how would they control us? With troops? Troops that are human? Soldiers can think too. Just because you're a soldier doesn't mean that you follow orders blindly, killing family, friends, and even your own nation and envirvoment.

The virus option? Releasing a virus, and only giving people who follow you the cure? It's the only possibility I see as "reasonable", but as I have said before, that kind of technology is far away. I'd say: "try again in 2050".

No NWO then? Globalisation, killing of animal species. Fear and all kinds of trash they show us on TV. Same old movies, music and harch laws. Racism and white power. Disinformation. Pollution. "Black Budgets/Black Money". That is what I call the NWO.

But on whose behalf? Many. Some people want power through money, others want it through "identity" structures, like racist groups. Others prefer war or extremism. It's like an invisible war, but at the same time, visible. It's a mixture of everything. But I don't believe that on the top there's a one mighty organization that controls them all.

And if there would be a "small group NWO wanabe", then why is Microsoft billionaire Mr. Gates giving away millions of money to welfare and the poor? Why is the UN helping countries through smaller organizations such as the UNICEF - while they have almost never been fighting any wars with UN troops (and in a fearful way)? Some militia-US groups complain that the UN is going to take it all over. What they don't seem to realize is that the UN isn't composed of it's own people, it's composed of US marines, Chinese marines, Swedish troops and so on.

Where is the UN central government? Many people say that the UN is too much liberal to function properly, and some even argue that it would be far more efficent to make it a kind of global government.

As you see, I could go on and on. But I have decided that people can debate against me, and, I will try to do my best.... duh...


world wildlife fund


What's so evil about them? Control the animals, control the world?


FEMA


It's strange that many people critisize FEMA, yet, they don't seem to know what purpose this organization serve, or how they possibly would control the world. I've read articles of volunteers who worked with FEMA, and they say that it is almost a big joke FEMA being an "evil conspiracy to enslave everyone". Do they even know what a firearm is?


the federal reserve


Yes, this is the only "group" I agree are not so "good". But it seems to be more about money that controlling people.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by RX84
No NWO then? Globalisation, killing of animal species. Fear and all kinds of trash they show us on TV. Same old movies, music and harch laws. Racism and white power. Disinformation. Pollution. "Black Budgets/Black Money". That is what I call the NWO.


exactly. the world wildlife fund aims to be able to control territory that is the habitat of endangered species. this is the problem, solution, reaction crowd. they steer whole societies throughout history. so, first, you hunt something to near extinction. then you point out that it is endangered. 'they' want to privatize EVERYTHING. 'they' pollute the water supply, so you have to pay if you want clean water. 'they' start wars, as business ventures. good cop(churchill), bad cop(hitler). 'they' are always the same little group of bastards. WE all know who they are.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 12:07 AM
link   
FEMA

instituted during the cold war as a reaction to the , ...uh, ....cold war. in the event of a breakdown of chain of command in a nuclear war situation, FEMA is the ALTERNATIVE GOVERNING BODY. in a 'NATIONAL EMERGENCY' situation, FEMA is your new totalitarian government.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 10:17 AM
link   


Totally agree. From the day we left our agrarian societies for "progress", the icy hand of the New World Order was guiding us, waiting to close around our throats!!


Really...



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   


[Federal Reserve] Yes, this is the only "group" I agree are not so "good". But it seems to be more about money that controlling people.


That is one way you control people, through money. If someone has money they will most likely be a happy camper.



Just because you're a soldier doesn't mean that you follow orders blindly, killing family, friends, and even your own nation and envirvoment.


You'd be surprised just how ignorant the public is on a lot of issues, a lot of things going on in governments and that is just with the information that is available. The government says jump and we say how high, with out asking the key word WHY? They say intelligence reports, we say WHERE? They say they're classified, we say WHY? They say because you CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. How far do you think this rabbit hole goes, I bet a lot further than we think.



But on whose behalf? Many


It's a lot easier to control the many who control the masses, wouldn't you say!!!

Look who has the most money here, it's not the federal reserve, it's not any single country, it's not any Economic Union, it's the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND. This fund makes or breaks a country, especially those that are bankrupt or developing. Nobody talks about them though nor the amazingly wealthy families behind them, at least not often enough.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   

instituted during the cold war as a reaction to the , ...uh, ....cold war. in the event of a breakdown of chain of command in a nuclear war situation, FEMA is the ALTERNATIVE GOVERNING BODY. in a 'NATIONAL EMERGENCY' situation, FEMA is your new totalitarian government.


What about 9/11? Anyhow, what I meant was that FEMA does not have any troops of their own. But it is still the president who is the executive director before the FEMA can do anything. Besides, as far as I know, FEMA has helped people more than done any harm to them.


That is one way you control people, through money. If someone has money they will most likely be a happy camper.


Yes, on a second thought...


You'd be surprised just how ignorant the public is on a lot of issues, a lot of things going on in governments and that is just with the information that is available. The government says jump and we say how high, with out asking the key word WHY? They say intelligence reports, we say WHERE? They say they're classified, we say WHY? They say because you CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. How far do you think this rabbit hole goes, I bet a lot further than we think.


Yes, but that's information. I bet that soldiers will question their superiors about killing friends and family, than asking them about the reason. Many people are ignorant, yes, but the induvidual question the actions. It's simple to decide to kill your friend or not, but it's not as important to question why this document can't be viewed by the general public.

Classified. Yes. It's like an evil circle. People start a problem, the problem exagurates into a very serious situation for a long time, and you decide you can't tell everybody. More problems arise, more classifications. And so on.

On the other hand, would it really be so smart to reveal the truth about the flying saucers? The aliens? Could the world really handle it? I believe we could do so 1000 years ago, but today, no...



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   


I bet that soldiers will question their superiors about killing friends and family, than asking them about the reason.


I doubt a soldier would be opposed to detaining citizens of its own country assuming there was a reason for them to be a terrorist. The Patriot Act established a precedent of reasonable cause rather than probable cause. If there is a reason for someone to be a terrorist, then they can be detained, whatever...I can think of a bunch of reasons mostly stemming from dissent of government wishes. Assuming there was martial law, they would detain people for such reasons. What happens if you refuse and become violent? What happens if there is a riot, where soldiers are getting shot or blasted by molotovs? Oh, I think they will shoot.

But anyway, thats a hypothetical situation. Soldiers are trained to obey their superiors, other soldiers try to brainwash them all the way through their training. And you're right, how many soldiers would actually fight if they didn't believe in the cause, not many. But in Iraq specifically, the President says Iraq is bad, so the soldiers are like, we gotta get them, they are bad.

So I guess you mean they will only question the validity of killing citizens? Well, I named one way they would do it. But, look at police officers, it is the same concept. They may look the other way for their personal friends and family, but everyone else is fair game.

If the officer thinks you may have a weapon, then they surely shoot you, and if not, they will arrest you and do everything in their power to take you down. But if soldiers aren't stationed in their hometown, then they probably won't question orders.

But anyway, I doubt martial law would happen, and if it did, then I think we all know what will happen. Viva la people.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join