Red & Blue Lists - Targets for Termination, page 1

Here is the realisation of the problem I have with people's claims that the NWO is coming to power sometime soon: they keep saying it, and it keeps not happening. Surely this shadowy organisation has had ample opportunity to institute its plans for global domination? Looking purely at America, I can think of at least two occurrences within the last five years in which the NWO could have exerted its control, if it in fact existed.

9/11 seems to me to fulfill many of the requirements people have cited for a "major event" that would enable the NWO to seize control. It was a major disaster, it evoked a sense of outrage and patriotism, it presented a specific target and it moved people to consider exchanging civil rights for protection. Surely if the NWO were waiting for an event of significance in which to make its move, this would have been it? The fact that we are not, as yet, being rounded up and thrown in detention camps would seem to indicate that the NWO is either far less effective and omnipresent than has been imagined or, more likely, there simply is no NWO.

Another example, and one far closer to the scenario presented by markusjharper, was the series of events that followed the devastation of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina. Here was an event in which a major American city was essentially annihilated and in the wake of which armed mobs ran riot throughout the city. This event even involved FEMA, who are frequently cited as a key element in the NWO's plans. And yet, we saw no prison camps, no overthrow of the government, no detention of "troublemakers" and ultimately no NWO. How big an event do they need before they attempt to wrest control from the hands of the governments of the world? How many major events of this kind have to occur before we accept the notion that perhaps there is no NWO after all?

Why didn't we see evidence of the NWO in other disaster zones, such as the recent earthquake in Pakistan, or the Boxing Day Tsunami? It's very easy to hold to the belief in the NWO. It's almost comforting, in a way, to believe that there exists some secretive, all-powerful organisation working behind the scenes pulling the strings and making the real decisions. Because if there isn't, then the War on Terror really is just about terrorism, and Bush really is the most powerful man in the world, and this may be more depressing than the alternative.

You see, if the NWO did exist, then there exists with it the potential for righteous change. If the NWO suddenly, violently came to power, people would be justified in arming themselves and attempting to resist their control, as futile as such efforts would probably prove. But if there is no NWO, if the government really is running the country, then there is no avenue for righteous change. Change must occur slowly, in a far less dramtic fashion. The NWO gives people hope, in a way, that its illegal rise to power will serve as a catalyst for change in which people would be justified in overthrowing its power and establishing the kind of changes and the kind of government that they want. It's presence, or the belief in it's presence, reassures people that things will not always be as bad as they are now, that there is hope for positive change in our lifetime. Because without the NWO, things are likely to stay the way they are, and people are increasingly uncomfortable with this thought and yet unwilling or unable to react to it.

The fact that the NWO has not made a grasp for power, and the fact that every year people reiterate that "It's going to happen soon ... any day now" leads me to believe that the NWO is less a genuine organisation and more an archetype of righteous change that people cling to in the face of an overwhelming sense of helplessness at changing those things which they perceive to be wrong in their society.