Plan C: World War III

Originally posted by CaDreamer
we invaded Iraq because Saddam had announced his oil would only be traded in British pounds in 2000, Libya was because Gaddafi was going to do the same but with a "gold Dinar" for all of Africa ..both countries where not under the control of the Central banks that control the majority of the world.

this power grab was led by the bankers who control the economic futures of all the major countries of the world. if you want to know their next target look for three things.
1. country has oil
2. country is not under control of the Rothschild empire.
3. country flexes its independence by setting their own trade rules for oil

Wrong. The OP has it right.

Its simply because oil is pegged on the US dollar. If the American dollar falls out of grace as the worlds currency, the demise of the US will be hastened, neccesitating their need to coerce or otherwise control these "rogue" oil producing countries. If their dollar is no longer the world currency, they cannot get away with simply printing money to fix problems, as this will lead to runaway inflation.

Blaming it on the Rothchilds is old hat, but i guess anti-semetism never dies.

Originally posted by shebearhus
reply to post by litterbaux

 

I don't understand the "control/power" "money" thing. You only have so long on the planet and you can't take it with you, your family or heirs can't have it forever so what is the deal? Power only works if people believe in someone/something having the power so in effect it isn't real. Money isn't real.

I've done much reading, researching and experimenting in the subject of Power. What you just described, that's exactly what Power is. I have power over you if you believe that I have Power, because you give me Power. Therefor Power is very real, no matter how temporary it is... the evidence is in the social hierarchy, of all of societies. You have your managers, CEO's, Presidents, Chiefs, etc. Now, just like with wind, just because you can't see Power itself, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It seems that there's two types of Power.

1) Overt Power. It's more face to face, direct. Fear and intimidation are two ways to gain power. There's also Power gained through resources... like having information, wealth, and food. I have this, you want it? I need you to do something first."

2) Covert Power. This is more complex, an entire thread wouldn't be enough to fully cover this topic, but an example would be manipulating someone (without them knowing), to manipulate someone else to manipulate your target for you, to get what you want with the likelihood of being caught being minimum.

There you have it. Power... the outcome of all of our social interactions literally HINGE on Power. You put yourself at a serious disadvantage when you try to pretend it doesn't exist, trust me... I've already tried. The world won't ignore the unwritten rules of submission/dominance just because you do, and that's because Power takes place at an instinctive level. But Power is also a process, not just an "instinct". Think about it some time... you'll learn a lot.

In one of the possible futures of this world, and in retrospect WW1 will be called the first zombie war, WW2 will be called the second zombie war. WW3 will be called the third great zombie war.

Now who here is ready for some more zombies, and the zombie Apocalypse.....Hrrrrr mmrrr brainzzzz.

Get ready people they is coming for yourzz brainzzz, and to infect you with the zombie mind virus.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by CountSymphoniC


Power isn't an anthropocentric concept.

Social structures didn't invent the notion.

Power is just another way of saying influence.

It can happen subconsciously, and without our consent.

If someone causes you to get angry, or feel happy, they have power over you.

Without influence, we'd all be living in our own cosmic vacuums.

It's real, it exists, and some use social constructs/mediums, to gain more of it.

Not just an illusion.

Originally posted by Unity_99
Cuba
North Korea
Iran

The 3 countries left without Rothchild's banking. Libya was one, until recently. I'm waiting for massive arrests done, the Rotchild's and House of Windsor are the main and primary arrests. The first ones I've always seen. I ask for the positives to come and do this ASAP, like I was shown. Period!

edit on 24-10-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

I could be wrong, but would Venezuela be on this list as well? I at least know that they are on the Western world's "naughty list" because of their oil policies, but I am not sure about the Rothschild's banking as well. Although even with their oil policies, as well as friendliness with all three of those countries listed, they are probably going to be a big player in this as well.

Also, this is a very well put together thread. I feel as though we ATS often come up with conclusions that end up being wrong, but in this case, we have been talking about a war with Iran for years, and it is starting to appear that more and more pieces are adding up to it. What I appreciate about this thread is that it is not a one-off event that is predicting of major disaster, but a culmination of many years worth of 'doom and gloom' that is coming together more and more with each passing day, and starting to appear more true than hype. Thanks for opening up people's eyes, especially mine.

reply to post by spw184


Jan 20th.2013, after taking the oath of office

Red, you being a smoker hasnt made you braindead yet. Excellent thread and thank you for putting it all together.

A while back.. and elsewhere.. a group of us were discussing these very things. When Africa is involved.. thats when you know its sliding down the hill toward something we all dont want. Looks like its starting to slide. I mean we have had dealings previously in africa for a very long time ( US, NATO, Gaddafi's involvement and 90+ billion) but this whole thing is taking on a new color recently. Rare earth minerals and resources.

reply to post by CountSymphoniC


A complex thing sentient beings are, even humans to certain extents that they can be called sentient. But yes, it's the will to power and it's in everything, in different guises, and different forms. It's a part of life and a driving force of life, both the obvious and the subtle.

For some it's like a drug, and like a junkie it is all that there capable of doing, and of thinking about. And don't forget that it corrupts, but even that to has a greater purpose behind it. Both in itself, and it's nature. All of this is nothing new, and it has come before and it will come again. Who here can spot the will to power in all it's guises. Is that not what there all looking for when they look at the greater scope of world events? Even when it does not exist, with there observing of the greater scope of the world and there combined and cumulative will's, they just happen to create it.

Did you know that there is a conspiracy behind conspiracies. And in that to, there is the will to power by many.

This guy bellow said it best I think. It's a pretty fascinating subject.....Just not as fascinating as....Zombiesss.

I pursued the living; I walked the widest and the narrowest paths that I might know its nature. ... Indeed, even when it commands itself, it must still pay for its commanding. ... a becoming and an end and even an opposition to ends - alas, whoever guesses what is my will should also guess on what crooked paths it must proceed.

...Nietzsche

nietzsche.holtof.com...

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by CountSymphoniC

 

Power isn't an anthropocentric concept.

Social structures didn't invent the notion.

Power is just another way of saying influence.

It can happen subconsciously, and without our consent.

If someone causes you to get angry, or feel happy, they have power over you.

Without influence, we'd all be living in our own cosmic vacuums.

It's real, it exists, and some use social constructs/mediums, to gain more of it.

Not just an illusion.

Exactly and this is another valid way to articulate the post you're replying to. Some people don't understand it, to the point to where it seems I have to explain it in laymen's terms. Of course we didn't invent it, it's instinctual, although you could say that we've developed more recent methods of gaining power/influence. The manipulation of emotions as you said is indeed a way to gain power/influence over someone else, "fear and intimidation" are merely a couple of examples that I gave, but the whole spectrum of emotions are utilizable tools for the power hungry self proclaimed "kings" of people out there. It's not an illusion, even though it can be used as an illusion to claim even more power/ influence, if you're a lone wolf type person that has no friends and no real power, and you walk into a party where no one knows you and you manage to project yourself as a figure of absolute "power" (through means of deception, persuasive conversation, body language tactics) you can easily become the life of the party. This kind of an approach is what makes con artists successful. I can go on and on...

Originally posted by TheRedneck
It would seem a lot of terrorist leaders are being killed nowadays, and all of them in areas where the US (or US-led alliances) are operating. This can easily be seen as President Obama flexing his muscles to show he is a strong President, especially in light of the upcoming 2012 elections where he is having serious trouble in the polls. But I seem to recall during Bush's eight years, a lot of concern expressed over his policy of carrying out such assassinations... including concerns raised by none other than now-President Barrack Obama.

Even though I am not an Obama supporter, the 'successful' aftermath of Bush's policies are making him look good. Obama will get credit for the killings, but Bush was the man with the overall plan. Unfortunately for the Obama Administration, history has shown that war successes do not win elections. George W. Bush won the Persian Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm, brought troops back home, and established a no-fly zone at the edge of Iraq's boarders. Even though he had many successes under his belt, the economic downturn shed a dark cloud over his re-election. Obama's ability to use George Bush II's policies will not win him an election.

Have you ever heard of the phrase, "history has a way of repeating itself"?

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Are we witnessing a shift in Obama's policies over the election? Or is there something even more troubling and sinister in the wings?

During the first two years of Obama's administration, he extended many of George Bush's foreign policies. Even though he sold a diplomatic line to his base, Obama quietly continued: (1) War on Iraq, (2) War on Afghanistan, (3) Wire Tapping, (4) Guantanamo Bay, etc... While he stood in the public limelight, Obama tried to twist Bush's policies to win over supporters. Certain changes were made to the terminology we used for going to war. Islamic Terrorists - became- Extremists. When people were busy with other affairs, Obama expanded the war to include two to three other nations.

Ironically, we have to take the butterfly affect into account. Was it George Bush's push into Iraq and Afghanistan responsible for Obama's successes? If George Bush didn't enter into Iraq and Afghanistan, we would not have seen the death of Osama and Saddam. Could the destabilization and fall of two world terrorists have caused others to fall? Even though the United States and UN had killed off three leaders, I do not think they would have been able to without Bush's policies. Cause and Affect. Bush kept telling everyone, "Once we deal with these terrorists, democracy would spread across the middle-east." Well... Was the man onto something? History will redeem Bush through the actions of the presidents that follow.

100% guaranteed.

Remember, Gaddafi's death was caused by luck. When you looked at the media on that day, the UN said the man's death was an accident. They had no idea he was in the vehicle.

Obama and the UN has proven George Bush to be... right.

(I am going to get a lot of heat for this post. Lol...)

great post Redneck. I think, though, that everything you've cited are just steps in the larger plan.

One world government, one world currency(electronic/chip-based, implanted).

David Icke lays it out here with brilliant commentary: www.youtube.com...

vatican calls for "central world bank" www.cnbc.com...

US Troops wearing UN colors: www.wnd.com...

I think it very important to not get too caught up in the machinations of the plan, but, to sit back and see the whole chessboard. one world govt. is where this takes us. nothing is accidental. Obama was NEVER going to do anything other than what he's doing. that's why he's there. to shepherd this in, using, frankly(and this is coming from a black man) his race as a shield against attack. that may not work, but I believe that was the idea behind getting him in the white house. So, I'm really focused on pulling all the pieces together to see what this really means. anyways, again, excellent post.

reply to post by TheRedneck

Within the context of your next post, you mentioned the tense relationship between China and US. Since I have been following the interconnecting pieces, I see either a Cold War or a massive World War.

China's Communist Coalition
~ Russia
~ North Korea
~ Iran
~ Pakistan

United States' Allies
~ United Kingdom
~ Israel
~ Canada
~ Japan

Iraq and Afghanistan can swing in both directions.

Theredneck

Now THAT is a hell of a conspiracy theory..

There is really nothing else to say...

Originally posted by nightbringr
Blaming it on the Rothchilds is old hat, but i guess anti-semetism never dies.

edit on 24-10-2011 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)

Bla, bla, bla anti-semetism, bla, bla, bla

Major BS. What has Rothchild being Jewish (I would prefer to say Zionist) got to do with that. If he wouldn't happen to be Jewish I would still criticize that filthy bankers family.



@OP

It is ridiculous to list Gaddafi with the other guys and call him a terrorist and please, before you mention La Belle and Lockerbie, hit the search button.

reply to post by TheRedneck


I agree with most of your thread but the whole nuclear Iran thing is propaganda... Even if Iran developed a nuclear weapon .it would be nowhere near the capacity that Israel has..Plus Iran does not possess intercontinental ballistic missles.. Plus Iran hasnt attacked a country in many many years..unlike Israel...? FYI i am Jewish so none of the anti-semite bull

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

Within the context of your next post, you mentioned the tense relationship between China and US. Since I have been following the interconnecting pieces, I see either a Cold War or a massive World War.

China's Communist Coalition
~ Russia
~ North Korea
~ Iran
~ Pakistan

United States' Allies
~ United Kingdom
~ Israel
~ Canada
~ Japan

Iraq and Afghanistan can swing in both directions.

edit on 10/24/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

Not quite correct...
www.dailymail.co.uk...

and the US is leaving Iraq by the end of the YR with no presence.. kicked out some say Google it. Just happened.

let me clarify... pakistan and afghanistan will be together against us.. from the horses mouth. Iran is a shiite theocracy, we are leaving/being removed from Iraq and the majority in the new Iraqi "democracy" are shiites. Iran has a close tie to the majority in Iraq.. aka.. iran and iraq will be allies as they already are IMO.. the region is a powderkeg ready to blow... and a lot of alliances are being shouted in public now by various leaders.
Can ya say.. Caliphate?

Originally posted by freepatriot
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

I agree with most of your thread but the whole nuclear Iran thing is propaganda... Even if Iran developed a nuclear weapon .it would be nowhere near the capacity that Israel has..Plus Iran does not possess intercontinental ballistic missles.. Plus Iran hasnt attacked a country in many many years..unlike Israel...? FYI i am Jewish so none of the anti-semite bull

They, as narrow minded as they are, will probably call you a self hating Jew.

Even a former head of Mossad said that it would be incredibly stupid to attack Iran.

I believe that for any REAL GOOD to happen, something BAD has to come in to play first. Kind of reminds me of Star Trek. It was only after nuclear war, that humanity finally got its act together and worked their way out into the stars. Most people know we have alternatives to oil. Only problem is, is that BIG OIL won’t allow it to happen. It’s only when we are at the bottom of the barrel that any true “positive” change is to take place. When we hear about the “new beginning” the Mayans predict in 2012, could this be that change? Could another World War bring humanity together as a whole?

Originally posted by ALF88

Originally posted by nightbringr
Blaming it on the Rothchilds is old hat, but i guess anti-semetism never dies.

edit on 24-10-2011 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)

Bla, bla, bla anti-semetism, bla, bla, bla

Major BS. What has Rothchild being Jewish (I would prefer to say Zionist) got to do with that. If he wouldn't happen to be Jewish I would still criticize that filthy bankers family.



@OP

It is ridiculous to list Gaddafi with the other guys and call him a terrorist and please, before you mention La Belle and Lockerbie, hit the search button.

edit on 24-10-2011 by ALF88 because: (no reason given)

Excuse me for jumping to conclusions, but i have seen the old (and debunked many times) Rothchilds conspiracy come up on ATS many times. They always devolve into a "why the zionist rule everything" thread. Pretty sick of it actually, especially when we know the Rothchilds lost their grip on the worlds money shortly following World War 2.

Wow, four pages in a single day... I'll try to post as many replies as I can, so my apologies if I miss someone.

A hearty thank you to everyone who has replied, both in favor of and skeptical of my proposal. At least i got you thinking...

reply to post by freepatriot

It really doesn't matter whether the nuclear threat of Iran is real or imaginary; either way it is an excuse to attack (either directly or by proxy via Israel) Iran. I personally believe the threat to be credible, based primarily on the fact that Iran has been enriching uranium well beyond the few percent that is needed for power production. The only known advantage to further enrichment past that point is for nuclear bombs.

Now, is my information incorrect? Possibly. Feel free to refute it, as it does come from main stream media.

But the point is not whether Iran is a credible nuclear threat but that Iran is a credible economic threat, and that is obvious. They have made no secret of the fact that they no longer have their oil pegged to the dollar, and without that oil peg the dollar is indeed 100% fiat. That intensifies the potential for economic devastation many times over, both in probability and severity.

TheRedneck