The New World Order

 The New World Order refers to a powerful elite that is conspiring to rule the world through an authoritarian government that would replace sovereign nations. An all-encompassing cabal which purpose is the establishment of a new world order as the natural progression of history. It involves many influential figures who operate through front organizations and orchestrate significant political and economic events, manipulating trade, public opinion and international conflicts in an ongoing efforts to achieve global domination. The New World Order has traditionally been associated with International Financiers, Zionist and secret societies like Illuminati, Freemasons, the Committee of 300 and Bilderberg Group.

 After World War II the conspiratorial groups allegedly seized the opportunity to implement the agenda of globalization as a collective effort to address problems that were “beyond the capacity of individual nations”. The initiative led to the formation of international organizations such as the UN in 1945 and NATO in 1949 and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GATT in 1947 which regulated cooperation in order to achieve a peaceful transition into the new liberal order. These organization were generally opposed by American conservatives and economic nationalists. Progressives on the other hand welcomed these new international organization although they sustained that the regime lacked the means to achieve real global justice and equality. Activists form around the world formed a federalist movement hoping to create a real world government but never had any success.

 

Between 1947 and 1957 the threat of a bureaucratic world government known as the “Red Menace” became the focal point of apocalyptic conspiracy. But by 1960 many on the right were promoting the idea that the governments of the United States and the Soviet Union were both controlled by a group of Bankers and corporate internationalists who intended to use these international organizations as a vehicle to bring about the world government, which fueled a campaign for the United State to withdraw from the United Nations. After the fall of communism in 1989 the Red Menace shifted to a new form of liberal collectivism and supranationalism as the main proponents of a New World Order. Contributing to the shift was a right-wing opposition to corporate internationalism, as the left embraces the globalization process true to the historical paradigm and attempts to disproof the right,  defining the new frontlines between globalist and conservatives, international financiers and industrialist nationalists.

 

In 1966 Mary M. Davison published The Profound Revolution, a manifesto of sorts suggesting that the New World Order hides in plain sight and describing how real-life institutions like the Federal Reserve, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the U.S. government operate as fronts for the “international banker” shadow Establishment.  Conservative commentator Gary Allen publishes None Dare Call It Conspiracy in 1972 in which he explains the paranoia in the context of deficit spending and basic banking, offering also tales of how the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission carry forth the economic agenda of an invisible global power.

 

The Birch Society true to its natural instincts and anticommunist stand saw the menace of an autocratic world government in the Civil Rights movement. Their objection is becomes obvious in an advertisement in the October 31, 1965 issue of the Palm Beach Post titled, “The John Birch Society Asks: What’s Wrong With Civil Rights?” The half-page advertisement begins with the statement that nothing is wrong with civil rights, just with the Civil Rights Movement.  According to the JBS, it constituted a communist plot to build a Black Soviet Republic in the United States. They also express the opinion that black people were being manipulate and the Civil Rights Movement was inspired by anticolonialism sentiments in Africa and Asia, although “they enjoyed a far better quality of life than ninety percent of people in the world”.   

During the late 1950s and 1960s the world was convulsing with wars of liberation between colonial white regimes and Asian and African nationalist insurgents especially. Kenya and Algeria experienced uprisings that led to the regimes the British and French regimes to grant their independence in the early 1960s. Fascist Portugal fought African nationalist insurgencies in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau, during the 1960s and early 1970s which led to a military coup in Lisbon in 1974 and a sudden withdrawal from Africa. In white settler ruled Southern Rhodesia (today’s Zimbabwe), South African occupied South West Africa (today’s Namibia), and apartheid South Africa, African nationalists became frustrated with increasingly deadly state repression and abandoned non-violent protest in the 1960s to embark on armed struggles to liberate their countries. Given the Cold War context of the time, the colonial states portrayed themselves as champions of Western civilization and appealed to Britain and the United States for assistance and the African nationalists received support from the Eastern Bloc which required them to adopt the socialist rhetoric. Newly independent countries, such as Tanzania and Zambia, were often sympathetic to the armed nationalist movements and allowed them to establish staging areas in their territories which meant that these states were often drawn into the conflicts as well.

When president John F Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, it shook a country that was already concerned with the Cold War and the threat of a nuclear war as well as the growing conflict in the Viet Nam peninsula. This helped generate a sort of euphoric mood and triggered the events that culminated in the signing of the Civil Rights Bill by Kennedy’s successor Lyndon Johnson. Pres. Johnson stated in his first address to a joint session of Congress, “No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy’s memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long.”

 

The Powers to enforce the Civil Rights Act were weak in a beginning but were later supplemented using Congress to assert its authority under different parts of the constitution, like its power to regulate interstate commerce, guarantee equal protection under the law, and protect voting rights. Although the bill included provisions to ban discrimination in public accommodations and enabled the U.S. Attorney General to join lawsuits against state governments, civil rights activist considered that it didn’t go far enough because it did not support provisions granting the power to initiate desegregation actions against private entities.

 

One of the arguments by the opponents of the Civil Rights Bill was essentially that is would be used to bus children to achieve racial quotas and force integration. They stated that one can’t legislate morality, adding that it would violate individual rights and state freedoms specially. Proponents of the bill guaranteed that it would not authorize such measures, urging the sponsor of the bill Senator Hubert Humphrey to write two amendments to outlaw busing. He said, “if the bill were to compel it, it would be a violation of the Constitution, because it would be handling the matter on the basis of race”.  Two years later the Department of Health and Education said that Southern school districts would be required to meet mathematical ratios of students by busing.

It is never more obvious that these conflicts are both real and negated by a Global environment setting up the chain reaction between the left and the right, a capacity and demand that alternate places. The Civil Rights Bill ended up being the New Gospel and integrating the environment into one of the most liberal concepts of collectivism yet, a conjugation of liberation wars, political resentment, racial conflicts, communist ideology, and religious impetus.

Immanentize the eschaton has been translated as “to bring about the final stage of history”, a heaven on earth like utopia related to Millennialism and the coming of a gnostic antichrist. It has also been translated as immanentize the emancipation, although the catholic church sustains has rejected all forms of “secular” messianism as well as millennial falsifications. Millennialism is the belief in the end of time through some apocalyptic even, the reconciliation of God’s goodness with the existence of evil in the world.

 In his speech “I Have a Dream” Martin Luther King expresses the indelible utopia which was weaponized regardless of what you think of the idea. 

“I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.…

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, . . . one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. . . With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day. . . .

And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

This is the right principle but it just doesn’t work like that, humans come together on cultural levels. This kind of integration depends on socioeconomic relationships that usually take place over hundreds of years, especially throughout such a vast expanse of land, regardless of faith and the absolutive concept of one humanity (which obviously play a role). This approach ends up producing idiosyncratic conflicts and apocalyptic dynamics. The most noble concept can be commoditized to create the moral doctrine and generate the “enrichment” with incredible repressive potential…if we don’t understand humans moral and political essence. I’m not questioning our capacity to come together by the intentional weaponization of the concept.