You know that thing, the New World Order? Well it's happening.

Yeah voting, that's the problem...LOL no offense but LOL.

reply to: sirChill

originally posted by: Mousygretchen
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass
why do you think the American pharmaceutical industry is so big?

IMHO there are a few reasons and I am speaking in very general terms here. I realize that most of the people on this website are very intelligent and probably do not fall into any of these categories:

1) The drug culture hippies, "one pill makes you bigger and one pill makes you small", thank you Gracie Slick, grew up doping and are now doping even harder on blood thinners, ED pills and blood pressure medications. Once a doper always a doper.

2) Americans are terrified of dying and having the party stop and will do anything or take anything for even one more minute of life. It is very appealing for drug companies to take advantage of this type of people and use their fears to make money.

3) Consuming Americans are way too busy or maybe too lazy to take an active role in taking care of themselves and popping a pill is far easier than working out. And even in the working out world I have known many that drugged it up with steroids, HGH, and supplementals both legal and not so legal.

4) Legal drug peddlers push their wares on every doctor's office in America offering incentives and perks, and even payoffs to prescribe their dope. I have actually heard some sales pitches and I am not so sure that the doctor's are doing the prescribing or that the drug salesmen are doing it.

I know that I am cynical, and for that I apologize, but I have had the bad fortune of being born and living through a time where the doctor came to your house, literally with his little black bag, checked you out, and gave you a shot and two days later you were no longer sick. Drugs are Big Business and now that Big Business owns America we will either buy what they are peddling or suffer the consequences.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So? Building a Turning Machine is a COMPLETELY different animal than ruling over a government, much less a consolidated government consisting of the entire world.

Yeah. And ruling over the entire world is exactly like ruling over the entire country. Just bigger. The US government (as it exists today) would not have been seen as being plausible a mere 200 years ago.

Here's the thing about incrementalism (it's called working on margin, but whatever)

It's nice to see that you understand what I'm talking about. I guess.

it NEVER gets to 100%. You can slowly restrict a freedom constantly, but at no point will the restriction ever get to the point that it is banned. It just doesn't work that way. A ban is too big of a jump from restriction.

And that is fine because it doesn't need to get to 100%. A 70% restriction when it comes to freedom is enough to be damn unpleasant to most people. If it were to jump there overnight, everyone would notice instantly. If it were to happen slowly over the course of 20 years, most people would be too busy living to notice.

So even though some (or maybe even many) people might notice and might object when and where they can, they will ultimately be neutralized by the prolonged conditioning of millions of others. Good old peer pressure. If you don't like being spied upon, you must be doing something wrong. I don't remember hearing that anywhere before 9/11. Actually, I take that back. One of my teachers told me this was how it went in places like Soviet Russia. This would have been 1986 or so.

Another problem I have with this CT is the idea of "a long enough period of time". Humans are NOTORIOUSLY short sighted. Like all of them. You, me, the poor, the left, the right, the rich, EVERYONE. I don't believe for a SECOND that the elite are less short sighted than any other human on this planet. To suggest as such is to suggest that they truly ARE better than everyone else, because they can think long term and more importantly consistently where others cannot.

I do agree and that is a nit to pick. However, "short-sighted" is not exactly the same thing as "not persistent". If you had a goal (Something that you could clearly describe that you wanted to achieve) you may not necessarily be able to plan your route to get there with absolute precision but (assuming the goal doesn't change) you would most likely be quite persistent in pursuit of your goal. As most people are. They may have momentary distractions. Their goals may shift and evolve. But the fundamental idea remains firmly lodged in there. Because it is something they care about. For example, Christians or socialists don't forget what they are. Not long-term anyway. A Christian might do something that is not in line with their faith but they will notice it eventually. They will continue to be Christians even if they don't always represent their faith in a good light.

This is what we are essentially talking about. Ideology and transgenerational goal setting. It's not unheard of. Would there be some drift? Would everything go perfectly for them? That's not the point. All they would need to do would be to figure out what they want to do and find a mechanism for transmitting their ideology to the next generation of suitable "heirs". Humans don't live very long (obviously) but many live long enough to come up with a coherent plan for what happens when they pass away. If someone has a goal and they know they will not live to see it, they will probably do one of two things....

1. Give up (Not likely, given the stubborn persistence of utopian fantasy)

2. Find a way to inspire someone to carry on their work. (Much more likely for someone with the pragmatic mindset of an engineer)

So you see. The kinds of people we're talking about are educated ideologues (Often just educated enough to be dangerous). Exactly the kinds of people who have historically been responsible for things that are not soon forgotten.

This is why the likes of Icke pitch the idea of monsters really running the show. Because, deep down, we all know if we are all just humans, then the elite are JUST as clueless as the rest of us and don't know what they are doing either. It's fun to pretend, but if you use logic, it just doesn't make sense.

No. I don't know why Icke frames his theories the way he does. I have not followed him and pretty much lost interest a long time ago.

However, it is not necessary for people to be anything other than human to do these kinds of things. If you look at the world around you, it's mind-boggling to think that things don't just fly apart. Amazingly enough, really bad things rarely happen and when they do, people learn from them.

For example. Anyone who might have had dreams of a dictatorship would have learned a lot from someone like Stalin.

Ask yourself this. Why does everyone know who Stalin is/was? Why is his name forever tied to the kinds of things it is tied to? The answer is quite simple....

1. He (and those like him) often try to move too fast and do too much in too short a time

2. He assumed he could use brute force and in the end, it wouldn't matter how things were accomplished (as long as they were).

History proved him wrong. He made too much noise. People knew he existed and they knew exactly what he was up to (or they found out eventually).

Anyway. If anyone wanted to set up a dictatorship that actually lasts after people like Stalin have so stained the reputation of dictatorships, they would know it has to be a soft, quiet affair. People must believe they are free even though their words, their actions and their movements are enormously limited. The restricting mechanisms must be fuzzy and difficult to identify.

For example. Technically we (in the United States) are still free to say ALMOST anything we want to say. There is a growing list of things most people don't dare say, however. There are a multitude of reasons. The biggest one is peer pressure. Embarrassment. Shame. You don't necessarily say everything that crosses your mind because if you did, you'd be viciously ostracized by anyone who heard it. This is soft censorship. It doesn't officially exist but it has a name. "Political correctness". But a funny thing happens with this kind of speech. Once something is added to this list, it gradually becomes so taboo that eventually, you might even get into legal trouble for it.

Right now, we're still dealing with things most people can agree with. I wouldn't use racist language against anyone because I'm not a racist. However, once all the low-hanging fruit (Racism, sexism, etc) is dealt with, it has an interesting consequence. The door is left open. What kinds of language will be added to the list within the next 20 years? Who knows? But I'll bet you political dissidents of all kinds will find themselves increasingly on the list of the politically incorrect. And just maybe "in need of psychological treatment" (there's a double entendre for you).

Above all do not forget this....the game called Monopoly, it's NOT game, it is insider information...

a reply to: BennyHavensOh

just realized mono= 1 poly= many.

a reply to: ElOmen

As in E pluribus unem, right?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you don't know about journalist's computers being hacked, about the war vet that was hauled off by the authorities to a psych center and was eventually freed by the ACLU----- or the fact that it has become rather terrifying to speak out against our government in a subtle way...

Then what the heck are you doing on ATS?

These things are common knowledge.

Come on man, wake up!

They see the trend of globalism and assume it's a conspiracy. We knew once the Soviet Union collapsed that we had a golden opportunity to usher in an era of peace, cooperation, and prosperity. The plan to make the world a better place, largely by tying it all together with trade, became a sinister conspiracy in the eyes of many of the disgruntled have-nots. America's social safety nets have provided a cushion which allows a bare survival to the ranks of those who fall into the traps of failing to get an education, careless procreation, and criminal convictions. About the time young people realize that there is no escape, they are left bitter and confused and looking to place blame.
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't Americans are really terrified of dying. It's a little scary for those who know they will soon stop living; don't you think it should be? In the meantime, those of us who are sick would like to feel better and maybe get out and do stuff. Those pills they sell are the best way we know to do that; which is why people take them.
a reply to: BennyHavensOh

a reply to: Parthin96

American's aren't terrified of dying. They're scared of looking foolish in front of their peers.

They are scared.

Scared they won't be invited to the company picnic.

Scared they won't be invited to the neighborhood cookout.

Scared they'll be a pariah in their social circles.

This drives the inaction and apathy in the United States.

Our voters are idiots.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You know, I've always felt like it was weird that Christians would fear a one world government. Seems like a one world government would be the fastest way to obtain worldwide peace (something Christians are supposed to be desiring...). Even if the government itself was totalitarian, if there is no other government to war against, then there can be no war. That is unless you count civil wars or revolutionary wars, but then you may be able to argue that they are new governments.

That being said, OP you're wrong. The likelihood of a one world government in the near future or even our lifetimes is slim and none. We still have to worry about China and Russia integrating fully with this supposed government, and that isn't even worrying about the third world, the Muslim world, or areas of the world with little to no governance. Look how integrating the Muslim world with the west has been working out for us.

Heck the idea of a one world government is almost AGAINST what the "evil", rich businessmen would want. Under a one world government, all entities would be subjected to similar worker rights. How could the corrupt businessmen exploit the working classes of various third world parts of the world if the entire world was subjected to the same workers' rights laws?

An evil one world government just doesn't make any real sense, no matter what ways you slice it.

As to your first paragraph, I agree. In fact, as a person who works on international development projects and policy, many of the main challenges to actually solving things like climate change, poverty, war, etc, are the LACK of cooperation and rule of law at the international level. Countries and their focus on selfish gain end up not addressing global problems. Some of these "new world order" politicians may be right that we DO need to give up some sovereignty and have a global system to survive.

I suppose beyond the conspiracy aspect, it is something occurring on the framework of political policy and trade as an eventuality for humanity, will it remove the greed, hate, and ignorance of people? No more than it is in all 50 of the united states... that has to come individually to negate or perpetuate it.

Looking towards the end of it there are two possibilities; communism as we know it from China or a Utopian society as we likely have never known it in the history of humanity, except in science fiction.

Communism works on paper... China just stopped short and never gave power back to the people, so communism that is supposed to lead to a Utopian society, looks like a horrible concept simply when people and their greed, hate, and ignorance of and for things and others come into play. If China continued on the communist path instead of the stop short grab... we wouldn't even recognize that China against the one we know of today.

That being the case, I find it highly unlikely that once the world is united that and equal balance of power in the people would actually manifest... because that would require those in a position of power to forego greed for equality, hate for equality and ignorance for a correct view for equality.

While ambivalence is not impossible in the end? It's just highly improbable, understanding human nature. Perhaps, there is actually ambivalence behind the global socio econmic push; and the war and casualty in the fight for it, is only there because of the hold outs against it due to harboring greed, hate, and ignorance? This though improbable is not impossible... and if questioned why it's enactment was so bloody and covert... it could be said that it was the holdouts that made it such a way(a finger to point) and the secrecy so the plan wouldn't be sabotaged with misinformation... that in the end it was for the greater good of humanity on the whole, and the casualties either brave soldiers in the fight, or ignorant soldiers unwittingly fighting against a greater good for humanity. This would be enough of an explanation, to quell the masses... as the same rhetoric is currently used under: public health and public safety blankets and people accept it.

If there truly is an egalitarian agenda, that has unfortunate casualties and cannon fodder attached to accomplish; would it remain that way once things are unified? If not then the united world of the future looks a lot like China... if it does remain that way after united; then anyone not egalitarian would be the enemy or terrorist to the global state, to be reconditioned... making it seem like China to a few hold outs... if the reconditioning of those against equality, were not treated with human decency then that would just increase the numbers of those against the egalitarian ideal in place that care about the person being reconditioned... which would start the eventual downfall of the new world government, as those numbers increased.

So in either case; it's going to be a get with the program and totalitarian in nature... though like the beginnings of communism in China it will have the full support of the majority of people. But when it requires thought control and reconditioning to maintain? It becomes no different in the end whether it gets called; an egalitarian society or not.

The true downfall of human societies and organization; are the very ideologies, that were used to bring people together as a cohesive functioning whole in the first place.

The problem remains that nature abhors a vacuum


If and when the NWO structure that is in place now: materialism, selfishness and greed, goes away (which it won’t easily) it has to be replaced with something.


That’s why we NEVER get self-righteous but always remain humble and hope for the guidance to understand how to replace that structure of the NWO with a better one.

The NWO just may be a prelude to something else, and that is that thing we learn in religious mythology and eschatology called HELL.


Hell is only the period and time when the outer world comes back into perfection and the microcosms (all individual souls) must obey that law

The NWO will fall when something better or worse comes

originally posted by: TechUnique
The New World Order is fully underway, they even warned you about it.

No, it isn't. No, they didn't.

They may have painted the idea up to look nice and pretty, but the reality of the situation is dire.

No, they didn't, no it isn't.

The globalists created this financial mess and their solution is a one world government.
The same goes for the current mess we are in with foreign relations, illegal war, and terrorism.
All of these things have been wrapped up neatly into a perfect bouquet of problem, reaction, solution.

No, they didn't. No, it isn't. No, it isn't. No, they haven't.

They own the media

No, they don't.

they own the politicians

No, they don't.

and in some cases, they own you.

No, they don't.

Slavery is very easy to get away with when the slave thinks they are free.

No, it isn't.

Chains can be replaced with television, smart phones, games consoles, music, and entertainment.
Prisons can take the form of an office cubicle and real prisons can take the form of a homeless shelter.

You are completely wrong about that. I think you should spend a day as an actual slave before comparing these things.

People are being left behind. Left to rot. Whilst the rich get richer, the power brokers get more powerful, and the law gets more tyrannical.
It's like the plot to a bad movie, the kind people would watch in the 70's about a dystopian dream far into the future..

It is not necessary to invoke conspiracy mythology to explain how and why these things happen.

Apparently it's not enough to 'just obey the law' anymore. Apparently now they will come after you regardless.
Just for causing a nuisance to the state. We are starting to see it in the countries which were once renown for their democracy, fairness and liberty..

Examples? Evidence?

... [populist nonsense]...