What exactly is this "New World Order"? And why is anybody against it?

Great Debates
1

When George H.W. Bush proclaimed a “New World Order” in 1990 (1989?), he meant, clearly enough, that with the end of the Cold War and the Communist Bloc, henceforth Western Civilization led by the United States would be calling the shots.

Well, as the late Iraq War showed, it hasn’t quite worked out that way. Except for the British, the Europeans declined to follow our lead, as did practically everybody else. So it goes.

Yet the phrase “New World Order” still pops up now and then – almost always being used to represent something the writer fiercely opposes. In some right-wing publications I’ve seen, the phrase is used often enough that it is acceptable to abbreviate it “NWO”; everybody knows what it means.

But what does it mean? It seems to be identified with any international organization – the U.N., the EU, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the G-8 – but underlying that is always vague fear of “world government.” Either these organizations are tending towards the formation of a world government – or they already are a world government and most people haven’t figured that out yet.

I don’t understand. What’s wrong with world government, anyway? Peace, order, no more wars . . . Why would anybody be against that, or afraid of it?

And why does anyone think world government is something we’ve got, or are about to get? The U.N. is a club, not a government. The EU is an international government but it’s limited to Europe. The World Bank and WTO are, I grant you, agencies by which the established interests of international capitalism call a lot of the shots in this world – so if you’re opposed to the NWO, is that because you’re an anti-capitalist? A communist, perhaps? I doubt that. In any case, it’s obvious that even in this new integrated, regulated global economy, national sovereignty still counts for a lot, and that doesn’t appear likely to change.

Can anyone clear this up for me? What is the “New World Order”? And why is anybody against it?

2

Well, I’m not an expert on such things, so this would just be an IMO type thing…for whatever thats worth.

I think the notion of a ‘World Order’ frightens certain types of people…especially isolationist conservative types. To be honest, I don’t think that, as a species, we are READY for a single world order, whatever it is. I see our development as a progression. I think that, in the last few hundred years we’ve made great strides, with several notable slide backs. But in order to have a real, working WORLD government, I think you need to have certain things that would be preconditions…things like prejudice and bigotry, if not eliminated, at least moved to the background noise. Things like nationalism would need to be curtailed, and people themselves would have to THINK globally, not nationally. No nation wants to be subserviant to any other nation.

America, as the only superpower, would be in a position to possibly take the lead in world events. Certainly from all facets we are the leaders atm…economically, militarily, culturally. However, as fractuous as our own politics are, I don’t see us in the position to either dictate or form through consensus a ‘new world order’. As you pointed out, very few countries actually follow our lead…and those that do, mostly do so for monetary reasons IMO. And if not the USA, then who would drive such a thing? I just feel the time isn’t right.

Human progression has been from the few to the many, again IMO. We went from small family groups, to tribes, to associations of tribes, to city states, to small nation states, to kingdoms and empires…to the countries as defined today. Along the way, the human precepts had to grow and change to incompass a broader range of associations…who is THEM, and who is US.

Right now we (as a species) are at the mid-stages of the nationalistic level…we associate US with the people in our own country (though in the USA this is still imperfect, as we are a nation built out of a host of other nationalities, and there is still friction between the ‘races’ to a greater or lesser degree), and THEM with people in other countries.

We, as a species, still have a ways to go. Without some kind of outside, unifying threat that forces us to come together (i.e. alien invasion, meteor strike that is going to end all life, etc), or some other unifying theme (maybe the exploration of space would be such a thing some day) I don’t see it happening soon. I’d say, check back in a few centuries and see how things are going at that point. :slight_smile:

But thats just my opinion…I could be wrong. :slight_smile:

-XT

3

“New World Order” is a bogeyman term used to describe any change in geopolitical structure that the protester doesn’t like. The anarchists’ idea of the NWO is not the same as the terrorits’ idea of the NWO, which is not the same as Vladmir Putin’s idea of the NWO, etc. etc. etc.

4

Isn’t there also the religious implication? The Anti-Christ is supposed to come when there is one world government, so any time there seems to be a consolidation of power amongst nations some religious people get very uptight.

At least that’s what I’ve noticed.

5

The “New World Order” was also a bogeyman phrase for fringe conspiracy groups such as militias before Bush used it in a speech. If you check the back of a $1 bill, you’ll find the illuminati pyramid and eye and the phrase “Novus Ordo Seclorum” - A New Order Of The Ages, or New World Order. Google up New World Order along with phrases such as concentration camp, UN, Patriot Movement, Black Helicopters, etc. and you’ll find plenty.

6

Try to think about this for a moment. After appropraite consideration you might conclude that “The New World Order,” like “The New Frontier,” “Morning in America,” “Coke Is the Real Thing,” and “Like a Rock,” is an advertising slogan with no real meaning. It was thought up by some speech writer who thought that is sounded noble and inspirational. Where’s the beef, you may well ask–but it’s all bull.

7

Find the nearest militiaman. Offer him a beer (he WON’T decline, especially if you let him smoke your Lucky’s), and ask him about the New World Order.

It is apparently some massive shadow organization, headed by the United Nations (remember, you can’t spell “Communism” without “UN”) intent on subjugated all us free people under world socialism.

Also, they have built massive concentration camps behind every rock and tree to detain the patriots. “Now, I ain’t seen one personally, but my cousin’s boy, Heywood, seen one. They was black helicopters flyin’ in and out, and the pilots was all speakin’ Belgium”

Sadly, that was the actual conversation…

8

nutjob link

9

Heck, I even heard some crackpots claim that the fenced-in tennis courts found in most public parks are really wanna-be detention centers – y’know, the black helicopters land, round up all the good ol’ boys, herd 'em into the tennis cours, then lock the gates. :rolleyes:

10

And do these militiamen think the Bush Administration is part of the NWO, or America’s best defense against it? The latter would be more plausible, considering Bush’s demonstrated attitude towards the UN, the EU, and international organizations of any kind. But if the NWO no longer includes the United States government (like it did during the Clinton years), then it’s no longer all that threatening, is it?

Also, what’s the difference between the NWO and the ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government)? Is there any? Do these militiamen really believe there’s a cabal of Jews behind the whole thing?

11

Okay, the basic conspiracy theory is that the United States will turn over part of its sovereignty to the United Nations. This will result in the loss of essential American rights like the right to bear arms in order to comply with international laws. The American military will be opposed to this so foreign troops will be brought in to enforce compliance. Third world troops will end up ravishing our women. And of course, the Jews are behind it all.

12

I always thought of the new world order as big brother keeping close eye on the citizens, like through satelites.
It could be used for the good and it could be used for the bad. Just an oppinion of course.:o

13

The term itself goe back a ways though, I think. I seem to recall a quote by FDR about it, along the lines of …“This is not new and it is not order.”

14

The term seems to be a (mis?)translation of the Latin phrase “Novus Ordo Seclorum”, which dates back to Virgil, and you can find the Latin phrase on the money. It’s possible the phrase might have had masonic connections, but I don’t know. Research on the subject is difficult, because there’s a pretty large nutcase quotient that gets in the way.

15

What would be wrong with a One World Government (because that is what would happen if there were a New World Order).

Well, the guy in charge could very well be a dictator, and then how would we get free? Go to another country?
think about it.

Yes, I believe very rich behind the scenes people are working for this-they finance it, and will probably succeed because most people are just too stupid and lazy to fight against it.

16

Well, no, not the way Bush was using it. He was saying that the old world order (the cold war) was replaced with a new order (the nations of the world standing up together against aggression).

17

ZOG tends to be used more by neo-Nazi and Christian Identity groups, which generally claim that we are already living under the thumbs of a Zionist Occupation Government. In this view, the Jews are already running the show via cabals controlling all the levers of power.

The New World Order is used more by Patriot groups who claim that there will be an actual event one day whereby the US is handed over to the world government. In this view, the US government in conspiracy with the UN is secretly preparing itself for this day by conducting secret training exercises and establishing concentration camps where all political dissidents will be put.

The NWO and ZOG aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, though. A lot of militia groups are anti-Semitic, but not as blatantly so as neo-Nazi and Christian Identity movements, although often membership interlaps. I’d say that no administration would truly be seen as good by those opposed to the NWO. An administration that on its face is opposed to the UN must of course just be working deviously behind the scenes.

18

Summertime:

Well, how did the US get free and how does the US stay free? By the people fleeing or threatening to flee to another country? Or by the implementation of Constitutional guarentees? Ever hear of Rule of Law?

Little Nemo:

What if the US refused to join any OWG unless the Global Constitution included the right to bear arms?

Biggirl:

If anything there is a “shadow government” which believes this nonsense and is working behind the scenes to thwart any movement towards internationalism.

19

So the basic premise of these groups is that the United States government is a oppressive socialist tyranny that’s trampling on the rights of all good Americans … but they’d hate to lose it.

20

‘New World Order’ conspiracies are sooooo nineties! It’s all about ‘Globalization’ now.