May 2, 2012
The phrase “New World Order” is so loaded with explosive assumptions and perceptions that its very usage has become a kind of journalistic landmine. Many analysts (some in the mainstream) have attempted to write about and discuss this very real sociopolitical ideology in a plain and exploratory manner, using a fair hand and supporting data, only to be attacked, ridiculed, or completely ignored before they get a chance to put forward their work. The reason is quite simple; much of the general public has been mentally inoculated against the very whisper of the terminology. That is to say, they have been conditioned to exhibit a negative reaction to such discussion instinctively without even knowing why.
Some of this conditioning is accomplished through the stereotyping of New World Order researchers as “conspiracy theorists” (another term for loony) grasping at fantasies in a desperate bid for “attention”, or, as confused individuals who attempt to apply creative logic to a mad chaotic world swirling on the periphery of a great void of coincidence and chance. I know this because I used to be one amongst the naive herd of “rationalists”, and I and many I knew used the same shallow arguments to dismiss every cold hard fact on the NWO that we happened upon. After seeing the conspiracy crowd made iconic and ridiculous in hundreds if not thousands of books, movies, TV shows, commercials, and news specials, it becomes difficult for many to enter into the topic without a severe bias already implanted in their heads.
Another circumstance that leads to the immediate dismissal of NWO research is, ironically, the lack of open discussion on the subject. Yes, it’s a chicken and egg sort of thing. If more people were less afraid to shine a floodlight on the truth of the matter, more people, in turn, would be more willing to absorb it. And, if more unaware people were willing to listen to the information with an open mind, more people with knowledge would be willing to share it. The psychological barrier to the information, therefore, is not based on any legitimate argument against the existence of the NWO. Instead, people refuse to listen because they fear to embrace concepts personally that they believe are not yet embraced by the majority.
It is a sad fact of society that most men and women gravitate towards the life of the follower, and not of the leader. Only through great hardship and trauma do some plant their feet solidly in the Earth, and find the strength to break free from the collectivist mindset.
Elitist think-tanks and propaganda machines like the Southern Poverty Law Center take full advantage of the hive mentality by attacking Liberty Movement proponents and NWO researchers in light of the populace’s lack of background knowledge. A perfect example of this was the SPLC’s latest hit-piece on an Oath Keepers article dealing with the exposure of a Department of Defense program designed to import and train Russian soldiers on U.S. soil. Because the article dares to mention the “NWO”, the SPLC jumps to the vapid conclusion that Oath Keepers are “paranoid”:
The poorly written diatribe is little more than an Ad Hominem stab by an ankle biting author, but I felt it did hold a certain value as a test case of the strategic exploitation of uneducated mass opinion. Without the ignorance of a sizable portion of the American public, yellow journalism like the kind peddled by the SPLC would be relegated to the great dustbin of history…
If a man is able to get past his negative preconceptions on the matter, the next step is to ask a relatively straightforward question; what is the New World Order? What is the foundation of the philosophy that drives it? What are its origins? This is something mainstream pundits never explore. They simply take for granted that we in the Liberty Movement somehow made the whole thing up for our own entertainment. In reality, the phrase New World Order made its public debut early in the 20th Century, and it was expounded by numerous political and business elites decades before there was such a thing as “conspiracy theorists”.
The Liberty Movement has always defined the NWO as a concerted effort by elitist organizations using political manipulation, economic subversion, and even war, to centralize global power into the hands of an unelected and unaccountable governing body. The goal; to one day completely dismantle individual, state, and national sovereignty. However, what I and many others hold as fact on the New World Order is not enough. We must examine the original source and how we came to our mutual conclusions.
I have in numerous articles outlined the irrefutable data surrounding the directed efforts of corporate globalization and the deliberate strategies of central banks in the co-option of financial control over nations. But, to solidify our understanding of what the most financially and politically powerful men on Earth and their cheerleaders believe the NWO is, why not go straight to the horse’s mouth:
“It is the system of nationalist individualism that has to go….We are living in the end of the sovereign states….In the great struggle to evoke a Westernized World Socialism, contemporary governments may vanish….Countless people…will hate the new world order….and will die protesting against it.” H.G. Wells, in his book, “The New World Order”, 1940
“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
- David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405
“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”
- Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, Time Magazine, July 20th, 1992
“There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the communists, or any other group, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments … I have objected both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known … The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) … the American Branch of a society which originated in England … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and [a] one-world rule established.”
Prof. Carroll Quigley, mentor to Bill Clinton, from his book ‘Tragedy and Hope‘
“Ultimately, our objective is to welcome the Soviet Union back into the world order. Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations.”
President George Bush at Texas A&M University 1989
“We will succeed in the Gulf. And when we do, the world community will have sent an enduring warning to any dictator or despot, present or future, who contemplates outlaw aggression. The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fufill the long-held promise of a new world order – where brutality will go unrewarded, and aggression will meet collective resistance.”
President George Bush State of the Union Address 1991
“The Final Act of the Uruguay Round, marking the conclusion of the most ambitious trade negotiation of our century, will give birth – in Morocco – to the World Trade Organization, the third pillar of the New World Order, along with the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund.”
Part of full-page advertisement by the government of Morocco in The New York Times (April 1994)
“To keep global resource use within prudent limits while the poor raise their living standards, affluent societies need to consume less. Population, consumption, technology, development, and the environment are linked in complex relationships that bear closely on human welfare in the global neighborhood. Their effective and equitable management calls for a systemic, long-term, global approach guided by the principle of sustainable development, which has been the central lesson from the mounting ecological dangers of recent times. Its universal application is a priority among the tasks of global governance.”
United Nations Our Global Neighborhood 1995
“What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system…a first step toward a new world order.”
Henry Kissinger on NAFTA, Los Angeles Times
“All these new challenges are bringing together about the biggest restructuring we’ve ever seen not just of the global economy but global order as a whole. And two hundred years ago, a famous British foreign secretary said that the new world had been called into existence to address the balance of the old. In 1989 another world war ended dominated by the cold war and people talked then in 1990 of the new world order. What they meant then was a new political order. And what was not foreseen then but is obvious now, from everything that we see and do, what we experience every day of our life is the sheer scale and speed and scope of globalization…”
Prime Minister Gordon Brown, CBI Speech 2007
“The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down…but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault.”
CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April 1974 issue of the CFR’s journal, Foreign Affairs
As we can see quite clearly from the direct quotes above, the New World Order, and its pursuit of global government, is not some “delusion” built upon exaggerated claims or impractical fears. It is, in fact, a very OPEN and freely admitted sociopolitical ideology held by a select and decidedly influential group of people. To label it “conspiracy theory” is absurd.
Are capitalist and socialist organizations “conspiracy theory”? Are political parties “conspiracy theories”? Is Greenpeace a paranoid figment of our imagination? What about corporate lobbyists? Was the purge of Stalinist Russia a fable? Did the Nazi party not actually seek to rule the world? Obviously, these have all been substantial forces in the making of our current era.
Throughout history, very real organizations of people with specific and directed beliefs have sought to guide the course of our cultural progression according to their personal values, sometimes using coordinated and underhanded means. The New World Order is no different in this regard. Its uniqueness lay only in the insidious nature of its methods and the complexity of its structure. In fact, I would have to question the sanity of anyone who DOESN’T believe that conspiracies are a constant and concrete reality. Secretive groups of men have always sought power over others and have always cloaked their thirst in the auspices of patriotism and rationalism.
Another issue which average Americans stumble over is the fraudulent notion of the left/right paradigm. For those within the ranks of the New World Order, “left” and “right”, Democrat and Republican, are ultimately meaningless terms. This is undeniable after one realizes that the leadership on both sides of the aisle exhibit almost identical policy initiatives and voting records. When the two primary political entities of a system differ only in rhetoric but not in action, one has to question whether they are separate parties at all:
When a liberty minded network like Oath Keepers points out the underlying New World Order-ness of a DoD program to train Russian soldiers on U.S. soil, they are referring to the centralizing nature of the procedure, and they are quite correct. The problem is that those without any context or background knowledge are completely unequipped to understand the significance of the danger. If only they knew about programs like the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, constructed to dissolve sovereign military and economic functions between the three countries:
What is to stop this trend of military homogenization with neighboring foreign countries from spreading around the world, enabling corrupt governments stocked with proponents of globalism to use not only a country’s own troops domestically, but the troops of other nations?
As the SPLC points out in an attempt to be clever; this intermingling has been going on for quite some time. What they fail to mention is the terrible track record these operations have amassed. The ‘School Of The Americas’, for example, used the same rhetoric of “international cooperation” and the spreading of “democracy” as a fair trade when training foreign troops on U.S. soil, yet, all the school seemed to produce were tyrannical despots and mass murderers:
Are we supposed to believe that the training of Russian troops within our border will produce better results?
These activities on the part of our government, in the end, do not serve the best interests of the American people in the slightest, but what they do serve, is the ideological addictions of the global elite. That is to say, they further the interests of the New World Order.
As researchers and web journalists, we are supposed to be afraid to mention the NWO. We are supposed to refrain from using certain vocabulary exactly because portions of the public are unfamiliar with it. To be honest, I have to laugh at this dynamic. I think it far better to embrace the truth of a matter, along with its dialogue. To be unashamed and unabashed in the exposition of the facts regardless of the ignorance of those around us. The New World Order is a definable and quantifiable political movement. Elitists who praise it in public are showered with accolades while citizens who oppose it in public are accused of paranoid ramblings. The less we care about what others might think, the more dedicated we can be to the truth. At bottom, when it comes to matters of survival and principle, it is a far better thing to be “crazy” and right, than “sane” and wrong.
This article was posted: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 at 2:43 am