posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 04:15 PM
I think part of the problem is in defining what a particular "thing" or "group" is.
My research shows that the New World Order is not a group, that such an assumption is false. The term New World Order originated in philosophy, and
it is therefore a philosophical idea, which means many groups (even conflicting ones) can hold to the same ideal.
Nazism is a political group. That would tell me one could be Nazi and hold philosophical ideals that equate to a New World Order without necessarily
The United Nations is neither a political group, nor a philosophical idea. The United Nations is a government institution - a vehicle for political
parties and philosophical ideas.
The Illuminati, it seems to me, is a secret society motivated by philosophical ideas. Freemasonry is similar in that it too is a secret society
motivated by philosophical ideas.
One who holds the philosophical ideas of a New World Order could use any of these or neither of them. They could join all of them or none of them.
However, one who holds a philosophical idea usually uses every tool at their disposal in order to live by that philosophy and promote it, even when
various "tools" seem to conflict with the desired outcome.
Take anarcho-primitivists for example. They are often accused of using technology to promote their philosophy and are thereby called hypocrites, but
it works. It is seemingly counterproductive and in direct opposition, but it has increased the numbers of people who hold to that philosophy. John
Zerzan would be a good example... He has published books on anarcho-primitivism, which means he has used technology. Does that mean he doesn't
really believe in anarcho-primitivism? I don't think so. I think he just uses the tools around him to get to where he wants to be.