Putting the "New World Order" in perspective

In nearly three years here, coupled with my ongoing higher education in International Relations Studies, I have come to see three distinct "New World Order's":

The first being: a Jewish plot to demoninate countries, mainly the US, so as allow these Jewish conspirators to, in essence, dominate the world.

The second being: a one world government installed through international systems such as the United Nations, etc., long planned, instigated, and inevitabally controlled by the 'Shadowy Figures' of the Illuminati and the like.

The third being: an international relations perspective based on states (the players in the international system are referred to as States) having like security and economic interests, thus allowing them to coporate as a singular international unit.

Please feel free to amend, discuss, or debate the above mentions, but in doing so, lets put the phrase "New World Order" into its proper perspective instead of carrying on with this centuries old, yet-to-be-fulfilled, yet ever proclaimed coming conspiratorial notion of a "new world order."

This link below will somewhat cover the international relations perspective on "New World Order":

In the mainline media, those who adhere to the position that there is some kind of "conspiracy" pushing us towards a world government are virulently ridiculed. The standard attack maintains that the so-called "New World Order" is the product of turn-of-the-century, right-wing, bigoted, anti-semitic racists acting in the tradition of the long-debunked Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, now promulgated by some Militias and other right-wing hate groups.

The historical record does not support that position to any large degree but it has become the mantra of the socialist left and their cronies, the media.

The term "New World Order" has been used thousands of times in this century by proponents in high places of federalized world government. Some of those involved in this collaboration to achieve world order have been Jewish. The preponderance are not, so it most definitely is not a Jewish agenda.

For years, leaders in education, industry, the media, banking, etc., have promoted those with the same Weltanschauung (world view) as theirs. Of course, someone might say that just because individuals promote their friends doesn't constitute a conspiracy. That's true in the usual sense. However, it does represent an "open conspiracy," as described by noted Fabian Socialist H.G. Wells in The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution (1928).
A CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER

The chronology is well worth reading.







seekerof

Thanks, this will be handy,
How about some labels. (is this for the wiki?)

1. Zionist NWO

2. Corporate/Illuminati NWO

3. State NWO

just a suggestion, haven't read your external link yet. (feel free to amend also)

[edit on 1/4/06 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by Seekerof
From an international relations studies perspective, the reality of the "New World Order" is erroneous, not being remotely supported by the current/prevailing international system, which is incidentally, unipolar and hegemonic, but not anything closely resembling a "new world order."

From: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think Cuddy demonstrates that the left often dismisses the idea of NWO and loops it together with the Protocols of Zion - associates it with the ideas of bigoted right-wing racists. He then goes on to show example of the NWO concept actually existing. (An excellent chronology indeed)

Maybe the Protocols of Zion is a red herring that serves in discrediting all discussion on the NWO in the main stream media. (left)

However, I’ve been reading some passages from leftist sociologist C.Wright Mills’ The Power Elite. And his description is very similar to what the right called the NWO. (minus Satan and the Protocols, of course). So I think it’s a case of different labels, describing similar concepts. (Think Orwell’s Politics and the English Language)

I find that the left tends not to assign blame to individuals, (ie Rothschild, Rockefeller) but rather the institutions themselves.

I think that the second version of the NWO is heavily dependant on the Red Scares of the past, and the idea was that there would be an Internationalist Socialist Revolution that would run the world. In a sense this was a real threat, as communism under marx was an 'inevitable' movement, the 'specter' haunting europe, that would be brought about by the natural forces of the world at the time, with the implication being 'why not help it along'. And that also makes most communist states militant and seeking to bring the revolution abroad and aid other communist insurrections.

Fromwhat I understand also the 3rd sort of NWO you reference is an extension of the 'anglo-american' dominance. We see in the lead up to WWII people like the nazis very concerned that highly capitalist american and english interests were shaping the world around them, provoking wars, like in south africa, and dominating actual nations, like in versailles. And the fear was that the market would determine world events, rather than nations and 'men'.

I am not so certain that the first version you cite is a big version though. True enough, people worried about the NWO tend to be anti-zionist and anti-semitic, but I get the impression that that is just something that gets attached to general NWO concerns, something that is outside of it. Sort of like how the Illuminati get wrapped up on the NWO scares also. Though the idea that the illuminati are trying to 'destroy all nations and religions' seems, to me anyway, to be widespread enough to call it a standalone version, or at least a flavour of one of the versions.

I guess I'm a little confused as to the difference between #2 and #3. It seems we find many of the same players, and there are many overlaps. Can someone go into these 2 a bit further? (I'm misunderstanding something)

And wouldn’t all 3, really be technique used by the NWO, or the upper crust of the elite to maintain and solidify their position?

The premise of #2 is that the United Nations will be or is the instrument of choice in bringing about the "new world order."

The premise of #3 is that the "new world order" is nothing but a unipolar system that creates a utopian-like world government, where all the actors (states) act in unison and harmony.





seekerof

does the United Nation version get rid of states? (drop all borders)

What we are seeing is the emergence of 3 distinct economic blocks. (Nafta, EU, Pacific rim) Kind of looking like 1984, lol.

The third in a way is almost a 'non-conspiracy' version. We often hear people saying that its absurd to suggest that there is no NWO, and what we often find out is that they are talking about a system, rather than a secret cabal of men who are trying to take over the world. So they view the 'McWorld' phenomenon and the americanisation of the world as 'the nwo', even though it has no one individual slowly bringing it about.

I totally agree with you there Nygdan. At this point it becomes a matter of label, many (especially on the left, i.e. university, Hollywood) despises the NWO label, (or conspiracy theory). And if Seekerof ever used these terms in a post-grad paper (or anyone) it would not be taken seriously. When discussing this, you have to use terms such as elite and plutocrats which are really the similar concepts. (to some extend) The NWO is here; either you believe it’s made of 1 man/woman or 10000 plutocrats, there is still an elite dominating the masses.

Although in the 3rd example there is no real Utopia, and they hardly act in unison and harmony. These individuals are still competing for the same planet, so there is a lot of backstabbing and inner fighting amongst them.