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.


Take the Hit, Wipe Out the Weaker Enemy

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:09 PM
Just had a cool "what if" experience that I thought to share with ATS. Not sure how well I'll be able to describe this one, but I'll do my best.

People on ATS often comment that the worlds basic problems could be solved if TPTB really wanted to. That it's simply not in their interest to do so. Often greed is cited as the main reason. I never liked this outlook. Something seemed to be missing.

So I decided to run a thought experiment through that the world's basic problems could be solved, but wanted to see what fit in my mind as to an intent by TPTB. I see it more as control, than mere numbers/greed. I look to the "Arab Spring" and realize the main catalyst for this event was food insecurity. Sure, a guy lit himself on fire, but the real reason was boiling to a point for a long while...

I then look at the world as a whole, and the monetary/financial policies which have been put in place. They're entirely unsustainable. That means the end result is controllable. You just have to shape around the responses to these policies and everything is set!

My idea is that TPTB are causing a controlled global collapse of the economy. The thought is that the weaker countries, which are your enemies, will be allowed to be toppled from within. Then you influence the order that comes about next. The weaker friendlies are given support, and stay afloat. Stronger countries can play down their strength, and allow a certain percentage of fear within their own communities to keep us all herded together. All the while, we're really strong if you realize the numbers are practically meaningless at this stage of the game. What matters is the belief in these numbers or lack their of.

So we take the hit to wipe-out our weaker enemy. We allow the easy problems a delay in being solved, in order to manage more complex problems in the short term. After the NWO is rolled out, introduce the technology, and put in place the correct policies which give way to a solving of the world's basic needs.

What do you guys think?
edit on 13-9-2012 by moniesisfun because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:49 PM
Perception is everything. That guy who lit himself on fire happened more than once. It just kept happening and eventually one of them took in the right area.

Everyone wants to "win." What the big groups are fighting out is who wins. What the little ones are fighting is to not lose. What most people are concerned about with a nwo style governance is that the people who are putting it out into the World most clearly are operating on a "I Win-You All Lose" model. There is no perception of Win-Win. There is a "we all lose" option.

But the uneasienss is mainly because most see no Win-Win. Which would make sense to feel that way about mutually exclusive ideologies and goals. However, most people know that there is no ACTUAL goal here. The goal is merely to Win. Which means that everyone knows that if they don't win, they lose. That leaves people with wanting to side with their version of "win" or to decide to not let others win.

So everyone is playing for Global Lose for everyone, merely because they don't want to not Win.

Personally I am not against a useful global organizational structure. However the options out there are very disappointing.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:50 PM
I have thought about this myself. By a forced population decrease (those "enemy" countries or "poor" countries) through a controlled financial collapse, it would be easier to implement advanced technology that has been hinted to be existing and to advance the already advanced nations instead of bringing slow ones up to speed.

But that brings up large moral and ethical problems. First, who is in control? Second, how do we identify the nations that will be 'wiped'? And third, how can we implement this without corrupting moral character? (How can you exterminate 25% of the population through non direct means and still act kindly towards the rest of the population?)

These are issues that personally come up when thinking of such a solution. Unfortunately, population is something that needs to be stopped, however, what is the right way in doing it? These questions will become more common place in discussion in the coming decades.

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:03 PM
Two good options for that storyline right now.

The over-populated under-educated countries wipe themselves out, and get some help to rebuild a new world.

Or the multi-cultural countries with all the advantages get wiped out. They become the "New Atlantis" myth. Where everything was good, and even the poor had magical appliances, and everyone lived in a semblance of order. A new goal for everyone to aspire too.

new topics

top topics

log in