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.


Have I missed something?

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 10:37 AM
I need some non-conspiracy insight here on this piece I just watched/read.

MARK SHIELDS: I think, first of all, that you have a choice. You can be a strong speaker. Nancy Pelosi was a strong speaker. Newt Gingrich was a strong speaker. And that is, you have a very tightly controlled legislative forum and very few amendments even entertained.

And what you put together, and as we have in recent years, is two armies in the House of Representatives. You've got the Democratic army and the Republican army. And if you have got more Democrats, you can get all your army to vote for it, and the Republican votes against it, and you pass it.

What we saw this week was, all of the sudden, with the F-35 engine vote, 100 Democrats, more than 100 Democrats and more than 100 Republicans voting for it. I mean, that's...

JIM LEHRER: That's the new world order, isn't it?

MARK SHIELDS: That was the new world order.


They mention new world order, but in a sense that it is understood what is meant. Have I missed something? Is there a generalized definition beyond conpiracy? Is it where both (all) parties work together--instead of being combative for the sake of fighting--to get things done? That's the context I take from the article.

I think NWO may have started as a good concept (Has anyone read "The Anatomy of Peace" by Emery Reeves?) and has been morphed by greed and lust for control and power over time. I know a lot of background on different theories, so I don't need that lesson... but if anyone has any opinions I'd love to hear them.

Thanks and as always POWER to the PEOPLE!

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 11:15 AM
I don't know of any alternate diffinition of NWO,of coarse that doesn't mean there isn't one.
I think that the Idea of a New World Order may have originally been a good idea. We have not always been a world of nation states.In fact this idea is fairly new and probably a bad idea.It is devisive and causes many rediculous conflicts.Geez we are all humans.We may hold different views on religion and I admit that this causes many problems.However don't you think that these religious problems would be easier to resolve if there weren't nationalism to promote more devisivness.I believe that nationalism was originally instituted in order to promote the divisiveness we see every where today,as in divide and conquer.I offer this link I found this on another thread and was impressed with how it shows empires and how far they spread and then suddenly it shows the division of an empire into nation states.My apologies to the op of the thread I borrowed this from and my thanks as I sent the link to several friends to illistrate my point about nationalism.
edit on 2/19/2011 by lonegurkha because: Lord please help me to learn to spell

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 12:34 PM
"The term "new world order" has been used to refer to any new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. ..."

My guess is that there is very little differance between the CT version of NWO and the mainstream version... just a point of view thing. The mainstream version views it as a political paradigm of unity in politics where everyone marches in lockstep with the leadership. The CT version views it as a paradigm of facism and iron fist control over all aspects of a citizen's daily life..

That's my take on it at least.


log in