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.

 

My Current Take on the NWO

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:23 AM
link   
In my opinion the NWO is essentially the "code name" of the operation that will take effect. The idea, is that the monetary and economic systems of the 19th and 20th centuries would not appropriately accomodate for the great changes in the later 20th century and beyond.

I'm talking population, technology advancements, resource utilization advancements, credit cards every where, etc etc.

The NWO, to me, is the plan that "Saves" us from the doom of this old system, which imho this old system ultimately does lead to nasty scenarios if we continue the way we're going, putting band aids on tumours.

Now, this may seem like I'm advocating the NWO.

No, not exactly. What has become affiliated and associated with the term has painted it dark and horrid, which, could be true in the event of a major economic shift/new system. Also, potential for power vacuums and the wrong type of people taking advantage of it, with all of their greed for money and power, control.

Anyway, that's all.




posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by 1Providence1
 


I have always wondered, what if they know something we don't, like an event, or solid predictions of the future of the economy, that they realise there is only one way to save us all and that is police state, surveillance, control etc etc.

Then I remember that they're getting super duper rich out of this and that they're douchbags, the end.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by iRoyalty
 


If you are going to save the world might as well get rich doing it right?



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by iRoyalty
 


According to rumours, all this Rockefeller/eugenics/NWO stuff started with Malthus.

Now, for "our own good", Big Brother is funding wars and revolutions, poisons the food, etc. Ever wondered why worldwide population will actually start to curb back down around 2050?



The cause is, according to Wikipedia, a "infertility virus" which is otherwise totally benign.


edit on 13-2-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 


Ah yes, the biggest flaw with keeping human beings alive, there's too damn many of us.

We're sucking this planet dry, and when there's not enough to go around, we'll start killing each other.

This is what I always thought they were 'saving' us from, ourselves. Yet they still promote wasteful consumerism, so I disregarded this as their motive.

However, over-population is going to be the biggest problem humanity will ever face, until we start colonising, this planet become more and more endangered with every healthy child born.
edit on 13-2-2014 by iRoyalty because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   
The "New World Order" used to be a real thing. Something discussed seriously in serious company.

Following the catastrophe of WWI and the series of secret alliances that helped to escalate the Serbian incident into the European cataclysm, a solution had to be found. The first attempt at a New World Order was the League of Nations. It failed. World War 2 followed. A second attempt at the League of Nations became the U.N. - decide for yourself how that has worked out.

A new method and mechanism for nations, cultures and corporations to coexist is needed. The old one doesn't work.

I dont know when the call for an end to the Old World Order stopped meaning a new way for nations to conduct themselves and became a noun. The NWO has evolved to mean a host of things, most conspiratorial and none of them good. When did that happen, when was that change? When did "A New World Order!" stop meaning an optimistic view of a new world and start meaning all the negative frights it has become? Not since GHW Bush called for a New World Order as many say, because the scare mongers had already put their hooks in the phrase.

When did the current usage of the term take on it's modern, negative, connotation?

edit on 13-2-2014 by Leonidas because: cant spell



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   
How can a new world order save the world, if what they are announcing now seems to be more the kind of "puppet control" than good intentions? I'm atm watching a video about FEMA camps. Obama's government has passed a law which will allow them to "imprision" people for crimes when they "know" the person commited a crime but dont have enough evidence to convict them, I mean, law may be imperfect, but in its imperfection its the best we've got. If there's no evidence it may mean 1. u were too good at hiding stuff. 2 (and more likely) you didn't do anything. USA citizens can be detained if u mention the constitution against federal government. They declared that "whoever doubts the 9/11 story is a potential terrorist" meaning they can lock you up for that. And that's only in the USA, and we know that if there's going to be a NWO it's gonna come out and be rulled by the USA's most powerful men, not by good humble people from Africa.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by 1Providence1
 


The NWO is a two tier society with lower tier controlled by laws set by an ungoverned upper tier with freedoms curtailed against anyone who objects to world dominated by fascism (aka corporate globalist controlling the world).

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join