posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 12:09 AM
I agree. The mere fact that the term "new world order" was used is not indicative of that organisation's existence. It is important to consider the
context in which the phrase is being used. It does not appear to me that the term is being utilised, in this case, to refer to the concept of the New
World Order as it is commonly understood here on ATS. That is, the speaker seems to be referring to a new paradigm of emerging industrialised nations
and the effect their new-found significance may have on the world stage. It does not appear to be in reference to a secret, shadowy organisation who
is attempting to introduce a one-world government.
Why would the New World Order, a group which has gone out of its way to hide its existence (to the extent that there is not a single shred of tangible
evidence that it exists at all) reveal its existence and plans through a simple textbook? It simply makes no sense. It is far more likely that the
author, having heard the term used before, employed it to describe the changing face of world power structures - in this case, as a result of the
emergence of developing nations into powerful, industrialised countries.
We must stop regarding every fanciful mention of the term new world order as evidence of the existence of this force. I am prepared to consider the
notion that the NWO does indeed exist, but I should want more than a reference in an obscure textbook as evidence. Indeed, I should want to consider
any tangible evidence at all. All I have ever seen is heresay and conjecture.