So what is it? Hard to put a finger on isn't it? With the destruction of The Georgia Guidestones, the term is sort of back in circulation again after a bit of a drought, essentially as in "someone told the New World Order just what we think of them!"
So I figured this would be a good time to initiate an exercise in trying to pin down just exactly what we're talking about when we say something like that.
Is it the shadowy world of Free Masonry, where at the top of the pyramid we find the ever elusive Illuminati, along with its many tentacles from Bilderberg, to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?" We can eventually go there if need be, the late night Art Bell version, but for me anyway that's like watching a show on ghost hunters, never anything to really sink your teeth into like trying to gram a mirage, the closer you get to any kind of definitive conclusion, the more the sought after watering hole is just over the next sand dune.
Now to be clear I'm not saying there's absolutely no truth to any of that, as a matter of fact I'm still quite certain bits and pieces of that shadowy world do fit together to form a long running, behind the scenes menagerie of related intangibles; but the purpose of this exercise is to bring to light that which can actually be pointed to and be clearly seen, be touched, be identified, that which can be articulated to family or friends without going all esoteric and sounding like a goofball conspiracy theorist to the average person.
In modern times, U.S. President George H. W. Bush was the first to really stick "New World Order" into people's psyches, and with good reason, because very few people knew what the hell he was talking about back then. Even now most don't! Conspiracy theories were more underground in the 1980's, so when he came along post "Desert Storm" in 1991 talking about a "New World Order", well that just set the whole movement ablaze, in particular far right Christians with eyes fervently set on the coming of the long awaited "Anti Christ", and Armageddon.
Watch this speech he gave in 1991, starting at 13:20 it's only about 20 minute's worth. In it he mentions either "New World Order", or the "Order", 12 times. 12 times in 20 minutes.
Moving past all the flowery rhetoric, what he's essentially describing is the bipolar, post WW2 World Order of ruling hegemons the USSR and the USA, giving way to a New World Oder of one single hegemon, that being the USA. Now the New World Order he's describing and championing, is synonymous with what's referred to as the "Liberal World Order". Take your pick.
The following is how the U.S. Army War College describes the gradual U.S. rise to lead a New World Order:
https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/a...l-world-order/Looking at each phase, it is possible to trace the rising status of the United States internationally and its promotion of policies and institutions that created the liberal world order. During phase one, President Woodrow Wilson’s efforts during World War I promoted collective security, democratic self-determination, free and open trade; meanwhile international institutions introduced liberal internationalist ideas into the system. Wilson continued this push at the Paris Peace Conference and he was able to convince the conference to incorporate his Fourteen Points into the peace treaty. Wilson’s efforts were possible because the US acted as a lender to the Entente powers, fought with the Entente powers, and because the United States did not suffer serious damage from the war—allowing the US to emerge as a world power. These circumstances gave Wilson the stature necessary to attend the Paris Peace Conference and to present his ideas and policies to the rest of the world. Wilson’s efforts led to the creation of the League of Nations, although the United States did not join, primarily because of partisan domestic politics.
Though Wilson’s efforts achieved limited success, President Franklin D. Roosevelt renewed many of Wilson’s ideas during World War II. Roosevelt’s Atlantic Charter mirrored the main tenets of Wilson’s Fourteen Points. Though Roosevelt died before he could enact his postwar policies and the ideas he presented at the Yalta Conference, he established the foundations that would consolidate during phase two. These policies included the creation of the United Nations, the Bretton Woods agreement that created the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (eventually part of the World Bank), and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (succeeded by the World Trade Organization). American leadership was critical in establishing these institutions, and support from other liberal states made it possible for the US to create a regional liberal order. The end of World War II also saw the United States rise to superpower status alongside the Soviet Union. During this first phase the United States rose from a regional power to a world power to a superpower, and as it rose in the international system, it unevenly promoted liberal internationalist tenets into the international system, slowly building a liberal order.
Phase two occurred during the Cold War, and during this period the US established a regional liberal order focused on Western Europe, the South Pacific, and the Western Hemisphere. The United States created the regional liberal order to defend itself and its allies from communism. In this period, the international system was bipolar, split between the US and the USSR; this great power competition was ideological and caused divisions within the international system that often affected crises around the world. In this bipolar system, the US and the USSR built competing regional orders. In this environment, US polices often struggled between promoting liberal ideas and protecting the United States and its allies. Sometimes these interests coincided, as in much of Western Europe, but in other places, there was tension, and often the priority went to defending the United States and its allies. The tension between prioritizing ‘values’ and ‘interests’ is not new to US policymakers; it has been present since the founding of the country.
One irony of this second period was that some US policies undermined the liberal order. In particular, US policies that supported pro-US governments over democratic ones left a legacy for the current world order and engendered skepticism in those parts of the world about American intentions and liberalism. During this phase, the US showed its military might while simultaneously relying on and supporting the liberal institutions created after WWII. Even so, this militarily created and institutionally sustained regional liberal order became the foundation for the liberal world order that would emerge by 1991 as the international system shifted into a unipolar system with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the US rise as the sole superpower.
Phase three saw the emergence of a global liberal world order beginning in 1991. The Soviet Union’s collapse eliminated the sole competitor to the US ideological order, the Soviet collapse was reinforced with the US having the world’s most powerful country economically, diplomatically, and militarily. This meant the post-Cold War system was a US-led ideological order founded on the United States’ position as the unipole. During this phase, Presidents George H.W. Bush and William J. Clinton implemented policies that promoted liberal internationalist ideas globally setting the foundation for further liberal internationalist policies by their successors.
So Phase 1: US enters the world stage as a major player post WW1, tries to initiate a New World Order, but fails.
Phase 2: A New World Order is established post WW2, but a bipolar world order divided up between East and West.
Phase 3: The Soviet Union falls in 1989, leaving the US as the sole, unchallengeable world hegemon, and a New World Order/Liberal World Order/International World Order was born.
Of note: The use of the term "Liberal" here is by no means the same as liberal would be used domestically here in the States, as in "liberals vs. conservatives", it's more or less talking about the freedoms entailed in democracies. A major goal of this Liberal World Order is to spread their particular philosophy the whole world throughout, making every nation a liberal democracy, but this is not out of the goodness of its heart. It's in large part for security concerns, as democracies seldom attack one another. So they're going to strive to make you s democracy whether you like it or not (think Iraq), even if it has to be shoved down your throat by force of military, outright coup, shadowy regime change, whatever means suit the occasion.
The Liberal World Order/New World Order/International World Order "loves" you so much, it's basically an evangelist, it wants you to find Jesus so to speak. For its own good of course... Its philosophy may as well be Christ like, and cannot be argued, therefore it's mission is missionary like, and as with those who would deny Christ in their lives, a terrible fate awaits you if you choose to go your own way, and not bend a knee to The Order. That's just the way it is. Also see Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuala, Cuba, etc., as prime examples.
People used to marvel at the close friendship between Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr., despite being polar opposites with Clinton being a liberal, and Bush being a conservative. Well they're looking at it all wrong, that kind of liberal is only skin deep, they are each actually two peas in the same pod because they both sing from the international liberal song sheet, and being an international liberal crosses all of those petty party lines. Ever wonder why foreign policy never seems to change under this New World Order, whether a liberal or conservative is at the helm? It's because they're all brothers and sisters in arms for the great cause of the overall Liberal World Order, when it's all boiled down, they're all on the same team, and if you aren't on that team you either won't ever be there in the first place, or you won't be there for very long.
That's a good place to leave it for now, more to come, let that settle in and tell me what y'all think so far. Can we at least put a finger on that?