Originally posted by AlreadyGone
First...you asked for opinions. That is mine.
Second, I tend to look for worst case and anything short of it is a good thing.
Not trying to discount your opinion, just playing devil's advocate to test it. No offense meant.
Thirdly, will there be an internet... and if the NWO takes over, as you suggested, will we be allowed to use it openly and with full
That's a great question----I think it really comes down to how quickly they plan on showing their hand. If they take over ASAP after the crash, then
no, we'll be screwed. But would they leap on that takeover right away, or like I said, let us twist for a while to make us all scared of starvation
and more accepting of the global takeover? I think they will keep the net up so we can all create enough panic for each other that we're scared
enough to not resist. If we have some time, will we be using it to organize whatever resistance we can?
Yes, things did get better after the Great Depression, but it did last 10 years and the world wide economic collpase was the catalyst for the
Second World War... it took the war plus 2 more years or until 1947 for the past war economy to recover to the thriving levels of the 1920s... not too
Exactly my point---they didn't let us completely fail, just enough to break us and then they put the pieces back together. But I think war, this
time, would be counter productive to the plan of establishing one-world governance. Either way, we're not talking about generations of starvation and
poverty, we're talking about one generation learning the "new order" and how to get along within it.
Oh...and I do beg to differ with the notion that people were not starving.
I never said they weren't starving, I said *half the nation didn't starve TO DEATH in the first year as others have suggested we would next time.*
In the 1920s and 1930s, 2 out of 3 people in the US lived on farms... now only 2 percent truly farm. My dad says that they didn't have much,
but by living on a farm they rarely went hungry... but they did from time to time.
In the early 1930s and the initial stages of the Depression, people were hungry... lines went on forever at soup kitchens. We saw the migration of
entire communities and demographics from one area to another seeking jobs and sustinence. Farmers killed there horses to eat them. If food was
available, you could not afford it... which led to price controls and then to shortages.
Imagine destitution and hunger and want on a level like the Great Depression... match that with the lack of civility and morals rampant today... and
true iggnorance of self sufficiency... and you have a recipe for disaster.
These are two great points. We have very little ability to feed ourselves on a small personal scale this time, and the implements necessary to do so
will be in short order and too expensive very quickly on. We might face a much bigger problem of starvation this time because of that. Combine that
with the vastly different moral landscape of the present that you mentioned, and it truly is a recipe for disaster.
But they did, as you pointed out, provide at least soup lines for the starving. They will not just let us starve en mass, though they will probably
let us starve enough to cease being a threat.
My guess is the farming operations already established will be put under direct control of the government, which will take all the goods and
distribute them as they want. Thus they hold our food supply completely in their own power. It will all be free, but never enough and directly tied
to your allegiance to the government. I don't see them outlawing small-scale non-commercial farming, because I don't think they will just come out
and be that transparent. But if they also control the water, you can bet they will ration it to the point where it's as precious as gas, and you
won't be pouring it on your garden. Hunting may be outlawed if they turn to it to supplement the food supply, or they may just drastically cut the
hunting licenses granted.
edit on 29-4-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-4-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no