Wikipedia still thinks so, despite hundreds of pronouncements during G20 summit
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, April 3, 2009
Despite the fact that the term “new world order” was mentioned in connection with the G20 this week hundreds of times by both global leaders and in news reports, it is still regarded as a “conspiracy theory” by that bastion of truthiness, Wikipedia.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown himself yesterday announced that the G20 heralded the creation of a “new world order” which would involve increased global regulation of economic markets.
A Google News search provides well over a thousand results of reports including the term “new world order” over the past couple of weeks.
Despite the fact that world leaders have been talking about a “new world order” for decades, in the context of the political agenda to diminish the power of sovereign states in favor of a move towards global governance, it was still regarded as a delusion of paranoid conspiracy theorists by the establishment media until relatively recently.
Now even Fox News and Sean Hannity are throwing their arms in the air and admitting that the “conspiracy theorists were right” as the agenda for global government is openly announced.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
However, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which is notorious for being completely infested with maniacally obsessive trolls, crooked insiders, and establishment apologists, claims that in its warped version of reality, the “new world order” as a sinister concept is still a nebulous conspiracy theory.
New World Order: So-called “conspiracy theorists” had to endure decades of ridicule for daring to claim such a political agenda existed – now it’s openly discussed in every major news outlet.
But according to Wikipedia, it’s still a “conspiracy theory”.
Wikipedia attempts to make the differentiation by claiming that the new world order in the context of a sinister, undemocratic, and ultimately totalitarian political agenda, is a characterization embraced only by paranoid conspiracy theorists.
Presumably, Wikipedia is only willing to accept the fact that an agenda to create a new world order exists if that new world order equates to a happy, loving, positive move, where world bankers and global elitists really have the best interests of all of us at heart. Forgive us for being somewhat skeptical of that conclusion.
In reality, as we have exhaustively documented, the new world order has nothing to do with saving the world and everything to do with centralizing power and control into the hands of a gaggle of criminal globalists who are concerned about nothing other than increasing their domination over the planet – at the expense of the rest of the population.
The new world order is totalitarian by its very nature – shifting power away from sovereign countries to global institutions which have no accountability to the general public whatsoever, and through which the public has no voice or influence. That cannot be defined as anything else but undemocratic. There is no such thing as a “benign” new world order.
This very agenda was again enunciated this week by World Bank President and and Bilderberg elitist Robert Zoellick, who openly admitted the plan to eliminate national sovereignty and impose a global government during a speech on the eve of the G20 summit.
Speaking about the agenda to increase not just funding but power for international organizations on the back of the financial crisis, Zoellick stated, â€śIf leaders are serious about creating new global responsibilities or governance, let them start by modernising multilateralism to empower the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank Group to monitor national policies.â€ť
Proponents of a new world order have always disguised their rhetoric with flowery notions of achieving some kind of global utopia, but behind the scenes the real agenda has always been sinister, nepotistic and anathema to any reasonable notion of democratic freedom.
It’s about time the establishment media stopped parroting the words of globalists and blithely repeating the term “new world order” like it was going out of fashion, and actually started asking real questions about what it really means.
This article was posted: Friday, April 3, 2009 at 4:46 am