posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:07 AM
It is a question of definition of terms. I agree there is a lot of ambiguity surrounding the term, and it has become a kind of catch-all that ends up
being meaningless. Let me try and clarify a bit: the New World Order is not a single entity, it is more of a unifying ideology.
It is the belief that world government is necessary to the survival of the human race.
The proponents of this concept disagree on many issues, but they generally agree with this part.
There are many different factions in the world, each pushing their own agenda and vying for power.
Sometimes these factions work together, sometimes they don't, but it is generally accepted that the central ideology remains a priority, and they
will work together when it is required.
There is a long history, going back hundreds of years. This is not a new idea. In fact it is ancient. Emperors, and Kings have desired to rule the
world since before Alexander the Great. The modern approach began around the time of the first world war, with the League of Nations. Later it became
the United Nations.
Powerful factions and alliances have sprung up and dissolved since that time, but the realization of that ancient dream is closer than ever today. It
is a noble idea, but it has become corrupt, and the outcome will certainly be world tyranny.
If you are interested in some history on the subject, I highly recommend reading Carrol Quigley's book,
"Tragedy and Hope
", written in
1964, it explains a lot.