This, I and have said this on many occasions, is the problem that I have with any discussion of the "NWO" because it is often utilized as a "catch
all," loosely defined, conceptual umbrella nomenclature lacking specificity. Namely that unless one is continuously specific about what they mean by
NWO, we end up having three or four simultaneous conversations.
NWO has many defined and abstract definitions ... for example:
New World Order:
In international relations theory, the term "new world order" has been used to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in
world political thought and the balance of power. Despite various interpretations of this term, it is primarily associated with the notion of global
governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of
individual states to solve.
New World Order:
In conspiracy theory, the term "New World Order" (the capital letters are distinguishing) refers to the advent of a cryptocratic or totalitarian
one world government.
One is in essence a descriptive term to delineate shifts in global power structure paradigms (such as the fall of the Eastern block) the other refers
to a hypothetical power cabal of a select few pulling the strings of global dominance.
Both may be true and perhaps a combination of both definitions can be at play, nevertheless many purposely confuse terminology to make a dubious point
and re-enforce their beliefs upon a false premise ... like I said above, a sort of misnamed "catch all" conspiracy of the gaps notion where
everything can be somehow incorporated and suspected. When applied in such manner it dilutes the value of the intended meaning and strips value from
any relevant discourse simply because under such an abstract premise there is no singular event that cannot without relative ease be somehow
attributed to
the NWO.
Now, do such sinister little groups of people that we call the NWO such as the The Bilderberg group, CFR, Trilateral Commission, etc, use vehicles
such as the UN, EU, WHO, etc, and other multi-national unions to do their bidding? That is the question and that is the considerable worth of this
thread ... so a heartfelt thank you to Ashley for taking the time to research and compile this important information.
However ... I believe that we must be conscious that we are 1 species, naturally connected to each other. Yet as we stand we are all disconnected and
divided by abstract mind made concepts such as religion, borders, language, and ideologies. The fundamental attraction to our natural state can be,
and often is , misinterpreted as a function of some sinister global agenda by a NWO.
And here is where a grand paradox reveals itself ...
if there is such a thing as a ruling elite running our world the last thing they want is for
us to rediscover our natural connected and undivided state. Anything else, including instilling the fear of god into the hearts of conspiracy
theorists about a potential united world would surely be part of their plan.
In essence, the last thing
the NWO want is
a NWO in which we all live united/undivided in harmony with our environment and at peace with
each other!
In my humble opinion many of us are being "played" even as we are fighting what we think is the "good fight." Heck, they've got most of us
thinking that being one with our fellow man is the worst of all possible worlds just by throwing three letters together.
We're all a bunch of reverse Candides ... there, I said it!
[edit on 20 Jan 2010 by schrodingers dog]
It seems we started seeing noticeable whispers of it in the 19th century (and some believe even before that) and it began to
become blatantly obvious after WWI. 
