It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is YOUR answer to this NWO question?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
One of the key events in history, certainly something that has been a huge factor in the last 100 years in shaping the world we live in, has been the existence of America as in after the American Revolution.

My question is, which scenario more likely explains the American Revolution?-

1- An orchestrated 'revolution' conducted by the elite banking families to create a nation that is controlled via covert measures under the guise of being a democracy...

Or-

2- A genuine revolution that broke free from the control of the British?


Conspiracy authors cannot seem to agree on which is correct. It seems it took a long time to finally impose the Federal Reserve on America, over 100 years in fact, but what is the truth?

I think the question is key to understanding the NWO, there is plenty of evidence to suggest the French Revolution was orchestrated by the banking families in order to remove the power of the monarchy, but the American Revolution is far from clear cut.

Please feel free to share your answers, let's try and clear this up!




posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   
History channel had a fun documentary, on the founding fathers.
Seems they wanted a county without God just science, but implemented
God to appease the masses.

Nothing in it about the banks, but showed documents that seemed to be real,
that the founding fathers were free masons. Then there the hidden symbols
in America conspiracy to back it.

I'm not sure where I stand on the subject, because I'm so opened minded it
can border on gullible at times. So I try to be skeptical about these things.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


I would have to go with the 2nd choice, mainly because your first choice is wrong in assuming that those advocating revolution wanted democracy. They wanted a Republic, and that is what they got until Lincoln killed it.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
.

My question is, which scenario more likely explains the American Revolution?-

1- An orchestrated 'revolution' conducted by the elite banking families to create a nation that is controlled via covert measures under the guise of being a democracy...


I think 'An orchestrated 'revolution' conducted by the elite to create a nation that is controlled via covert measures under the guise of being a democracy,; would have been a better question. Talking about 'banking families' or anyone else, by name only creates furtile ground for the shills and others who want to derail you to do exactly that.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Is the lack of response down to the fact people do not want to consider that their 'founding fathers' were part of the conspiracy?

Or is it because people don't care as to the 'why's of why we are where we are today?



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by terriblyvexed
History channel had a fun documentary, on the founding fathers.
Seems they wanted a county without God just science, but implemented
God to appease the masses.

Nothing in it about the banks, but showed documents that seemed to be real,
that the founding fathers were free masons. Then there the hidden symbols
in America conspiracy to back it.

I'm not sure where I stand on the subject, because I'm so opened minded it
can border on gullible at times. So I try to be skeptical about these things.


Many of the founding fathers were freemasons, although this does not really mean they were part of the conspiracy to set up covert control, as eventually happened in America as the banks gained more and more power.

Many of the founding fathers supported the 'Enlightenment' but this could just be another control system, to imprison people in thinking only science is the answer, thus avoiding the truth about our origins/history.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


On several occasions now I have seen numerous theorists hint at the possibility that the American Revolution was an orchestrated event, without ever going into much detail. One such theorist highlighted several key events/battles that went in the colonies favour when all the odds looked to favour the British. His theory being that the only reason the British lost the war was because they wanted to.

Being British myself my knowledge on the subject is somewhat limited but I would love to see someone tackle the possible conspiratorial element of the war.
edit on 7/4/2013 by LiveForever8 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
It is a thought provoking question but I believe the the "course of human events....and tyranny" precipitated the American Revolution not a banking conspiracy. If the banking cabal controlled the colonies (mercantilism) then would they not make less profits by allowing the colonists to make finished goods? If the banking cabal was in control then why did the "Continental Currency" fail so miserably? If the banking cabal was in control then why didnt they bribe british loyalists to turn coat instead of a colonial general who had financial problems like Benedict Arnold to betray the struggle for colonial independence? It is more likely that the bankers swooped in after the fact (like the carpetbaggers after the civil war) and sought to seek control....and something that Thomas Jefferson (a founding father and early president) and later Andrew Jackson (who fought the British in the War of 1812) warned us about.
edit on 7-4-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Back in the day...

There was a man who was the most famous man in the entire world.

He was Elvis, Einstein, Reagan, and Bill Gates all rolled into one.

Because for the first moment in world history
there were newspapers in every country,
and everyone wanted to read about
this one superstar.

The man who tamed the ghosts of the ancient worlds superstitions.
Who invented the lightning rod and tamed the heavens,
who discovered electricity and endorsed
the Leyden Jar.

The first modern Scientist. [color=gold] Benjamin Franklin. The first modern Statesman.

This man was so famous
that he was able to form his own country.
One that he wanted to make a safe environment for the study of science.

And he got it.

And the explosion in science is nearly unmeasurable.




The illuminati and the new world order are the sounds
of the uninventive gambling over who's going to own the inventions.



I don't think he was "in it" I think
the illuminati is a false light
trying to erase his shadow.

Modern America.


Mike Grouchy

















Old World Order








New World Order
edit on 7-4-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Many of the founding fathers supported the 'Enlightenment' but this could just be another control system, to imprison people in thinking only science is the answer, thus avoiding the truth about our origins/history.


There is so much wrong even with this single sentence that I don't know where to start.

You clearly don't understand what science is. Here you go:
en.wikipedia.org...



In modern use, "science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is "often treated as synonymous with 'natural and physical science', and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use."


If you know something about about "our origins/history" that the scientists don't know, why don't you publish your "findings" in some scientific journal?



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiveForever8
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


On several occasions now I have seen numerous theorists hint at the possibility that the American Revolution was an orchestrated event, without ever going into much detail. One such theorist highlighted several key events/battles that went in the colonies favour when all the odds looked to favour the British. His theory being that the only reason the British lost the war was because they wanted to.

Being British myself my knowledge on the subject is somewhat limited but I would love to see someone tackle the possible conspiratorial element of the war.
edit on 7/4/2013 by LiveForever8 because: (no reason given)


The revolutionary war was far too chaotic to have been an orchestrated event. Consider the fact that George Washington, the main player in the war, should have died countless times, and didn't, and there is no way this could have been a staged event.

During the battle of Princeton Washington came late to the battle to see the American forces being routed and emplored them to return to battle. After reforming them he marched them up to the British line, and rode no less than 30 yards from the British before giving the order to fire. Two lines of hundreds of men firing volley's at each other and Washington sitting on his horse in the middle of it and he didn't take one single shot.

You cannot plan events like that.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


I'm not talking about George Washington though, he is but one man.

I will try to remember what author (and what book) I read it in and see if I can dig it up and expand on it all a bit more.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiveForever8
reply to post by Hopechest
 


I'm not talking about George Washington though, he is but one man.

I will try to remember what author (and what book) I read it in and see if I can dig it up and expand on it all a bit more.


I understand that but Washington was the commander of all American forces and as such he layed out the overall strategy during the revolution. Any attempt to stage events would certainly have to go through him or whoever was in his position.

My point was that you don't rest your plans on a man who carelessly charges into battle and will probably get himself killed. You'd then have to start over with a new guy and all the while the war is waging on.

If it was a staged war than Washington would never have left his tent. Just issued orders.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 



Originally posted by Hopechest
I understand that but Washington was the commander of all American forces and as such he layed out the overall strategy during the revolution. Any attempt to stage events would certainly have to go through him or whoever was in his position.

My point was that you don't rest your plans on a man who carelessly charges into battle and will probably get himself killed. You'd then have to start over with a new guy and all the while the war is waging on.

If it was a staged war than Washington would never have left his tent. Just issued orders.


True, but that is assuming two things.

Firstly; Washington was in charge.

Secondly; Washington had anything to do with the orchestration of the war for nefarious purposes.

Of the first point, Washington may well have been in charge...in much the same way that Bush was in charge. They all answer to someone.

Of the second point, my original post was referring to the British being the one doing the orchestration. The leaders of the Revolution on the American side wouldn't have to be in on it at all.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiveForever8
reply to post by Hopechest
 



Originally posted by Hopechest
I understand that but Washington was the commander of all American forces and as such he layed out the overall strategy during the revolution. Any attempt to stage events would certainly have to go through him or whoever was in his position.

My point was that you don't rest your plans on a man who carelessly charges into battle and will probably get himself killed. You'd then have to start over with a new guy and all the while the war is waging on.

If it was a staged war than Washington would never have left his tent. Just issued orders.


True, but that is assuming two things.

Firstly; Washington was in charge.

Secondly; Washington had anything to do with the orchestration of the war for nefarious purposes.

Of the first point, Washington may well have been in charge...in much the same way that Bush was in charge. They all answer to someone.

Of the second point, my original post was referring to the British being the one doing the orchestration. The leaders of the Revolution on the American side wouldn't have to be in on it at all.


Well as for the actual battles there were to many circumstances of Washington issuing orders and drawing up plans on the spot. There is no way to have pre-planned these events so yes, Washington was in charge directly on the field.

At least the battles he was involved in. Washington did not answer to anyone, he was giving King like power over all military assests.

As to your other point, what would be the reason for the British to orchestrate this event? It put them into insane debt, caused the loss of colonies, not only in America, but other places around the world, set them at a disadvantage in their long running war with the French, destroyed their trade, caused the loss of a place to send their prisoners which led to serious overcrowding, poverty, crime, and sickness back in England.

They gained absolutely nothing by orchestrating this.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xenoglossy

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Many of the founding fathers supported the 'Enlightenment' but this could just be another control system, to imprison people in thinking only science is the answer, thus avoiding the truth about our origins/history.


There is so much wrong even with this single sentence that I don't know where to start.

You clearly don't understand what science is. Here you go:
en.wikipedia.org...



In modern use, "science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is "often treated as synonymous with 'natural and physical science', and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use."


If you know something about about "our origins/history" that the scientists don't know, why don't you publish your "findings" in some scientific journal?


Mainstream science flat out denies the existence of the spiritual or other worldly, I don't see why it is unfair to be seen as another avenue of confining human though into a certain direction.

Science and Religion are directly opposed to each other, yet both stem from similar folks. Francis Bacon...say no more



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


Not necessarily. There are many Christian scientists who are now liking evolution to creation and combining the two ideologies. This new way of thinking is slowly starting to gain acceptability in many churches also.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
It is a thought provoking question but I believe the the "course of human events....and tyranny" precipitated the American Revolution not a banking conspiracy. If the banking cabal controlled the colonies (mercantilism) then would they not make less profits by allowing the colonists to make finished goods? If the banking cabal was in control then why did the "Continental Currency" fail so miserably? If the banking cabal was in control then why didnt they bribe british loyalists to turn coat instead of a colonial general who had financial problems like Benedict Arnold to betray the struggle for colonial independence? It is more likely that the bankers swooped in after the fact (like the carpetbaggers after the civil war) and sought to seek control....and something that Thomas Jefferson (a founding father and early president) and later Andrew Jackson (who fought the British in the War of 1812) warned us about.
edit on 7-4-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)


Andrew Jackson was certainly against the those seeking to create central banks.

I guess the answer to this question is far from 'black and white', with many fighting genuinely for independence, I do agree though, it seems the bankers did swoop in afterwards- afterall, it took many years to set up the FED.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


Not necessarily. There are many Christian scientists who are now liking evolution to creation and combining the two ideologies. This new way of thinking is slowly starting to gain acceptability in many churches also.


Yes, but that is now. Ideologies can be used to control people, as religion has been used. What if people were beginning to question religion at the time of the revolution (as shown perhaps with greater impact during the French Revolution and the Enlightenment), so the elite decided to create a new ideology to hide the truth, namely mainstream science?

As time goes by, people begin to question any ideology that controls them.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Mainstream science flat out denies the existence of the spiritual or other worldly, I don't see why it is unfair to be seen as another avenue of confining human though into a certain direction.


It most certainly doesn't.

A LOT of scientists would love to prove the existence of something spiritual or "otherworldly". Are you kidding me? If you proved the existence of the spiritual world scientifically ... that's not a Nobel Price ... that's a whole new field of study that you just became the father of. Most likely there would be school subject "spiritual studies" and you would be acknowledged as the founder.

But unlike the average believer, scientists will demand EVIDENCE! If a scientist is going on a quest to prove the spiritual world, he would need overwhelming, superiour evidence. Why? Because all evidence we have right now, tends to suggest that there is nothing spiritual. So basically your evidence needs to be sooo damn good that all the data collected in the last two centuries will become lacking in comparison.

And to underline the point: Show me someone who will go into a lab and perform some spiritual miracle under scientific scrutiny!




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join