by Brandon Smith
Contributor
May 2, 2012
from
ActivistPost Website
Spanish version
|
Brandon Smith is the founder of Alt-Market is an organization designed to
help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that
you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense.
Join
Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system
and build something better or contribute to their Safe Haven Project.
You
can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com |
The phrase “New World Order” is so loaded with explosive assumptions and
perceptions that its very usage has become a kind of journalistic landmine.
Many analysts (some in the mainstream) have attempted to write about and
discuss this very real sociopolitical ideology in a plain and exploratory
manner, using a fair hand and supporting data, only to be attacked,
ridiculed, or completely ignored before they get a chance to put forward
their work.
The reason is quite simple; much of the general public has been
mentally inoculated against the very whisper of the terminology. That is to
say, they have been conditioned to exhibit a negative reaction to such
discussion instinctively without even knowing why.
Some of this conditioning is accomplished through the stereotyping of New
World Order researchers as “conspiracy theorists” (another term for loony)
grasping at fantasies in a desperate bid for “attention”, or, as confused
individuals who attempt to apply creative logic to a mad chaotic world
swirling on the periphery of a great void of coincidence and chance.
I know
this because I used to be one amongst the naive herd of “rationalists”, and
I and many I knew used the same shallow arguments to dismiss every cold hard
fact on the NWO that we happened upon.
After seeing the conspiracy crowd
made iconic and ridiculous in hundreds if not thousands of books, movies, TV
shows, commercials, and news specials, it becomes difficult for many to
enter into the topic without a severe bias already implanted in their heads.
Another circumstance that leads to the immediate dismissal of NWO research
is, ironically, the lack of open discussion on the subject. Yes, it’s a
chicken and egg sort of thing. If more people were less afraid to shine a
floodlight on the truth of the matter, more people, in turn, would be more
willing to absorb it. And, if more unaware people were willing to listen
with an open mind, more people with knowledge would be willing to share it.
The psychological barrier to the information, therefore, is not based on any
legitimate argument against the existence of the NWO. Instead, people refuse
to listen because they fear to embrace concepts personally that they believe
are not yet embraced by the majority.
It is a sad fact of society that most men and women gravitate towards the
life of the follower, and not of the leader. Only through great hardship and
trauma do some plant their feet solidly in the Earth, and find the strength
to break free from the collectivist mindset.
Elitist think-tanks and propaganda machines like the Southern Poverty Law
Center (SPLC) take full advantage of the hive mentality by attacking Liberty
Movement proponents and NWO researchers in light of the populace’s lack of
background knowledge.
A perfect example of this was the SPLC’s latest
hit-piece on an Oath Keepers article dealing with the exposure of a
Department of Defense program designed to import and train
Russian soldiers
on U.S. soil.
Because the article dares to mention the “NWO”, the SPLC
jumps to the vapid conclusion that Oath Keepers are “paranoid”.
The poorly written diatribe is little more than an Ad Hominem stab by an
ankle biting author, but I felt it did hold a certain value as a test case
of the strategic exploitation of uneducated mass opinion.
Without the
ignorance of a sizable portion of the American public, yellow journalism
like the kind peddled by the SPLC would be relegated to the great dustbin of
history…
If a man is able to get past his negative preconceptions on the matter, the
next step is to ask a relatively straightforward question:
This is something mainstream pundits never explore.
They
simply take for granted that we in the Liberty Movement somehow made the
whole thing up for our own entertainment. In reality, the phrase New World
Order made its public debut early in the 20th Century, and it was expounded
by numerous political and business elites decades before there was such a
thing as “conspiracy theorists”.
The Liberty Movement has always defined the NWO as a concerted effort by
elitist organizations using political manipulation, economic subversion, and
even war, to centralize global power into the hands of an unelected and
unaccountable governing body.
The goal:
to one day completely dismantle
individual, state, and national sovereignty.
However, what I and many others
hold as fact on the New World Order is not enough. We must examine the
original source and how we came to our mutual conclusions.
I have in numerous articles outlined the irrefutable data surrounding the
directed efforts of corporate globalization and the deliberate strategies of
central banks in the co-option of financial control over nations.
But, to
solidify our understanding of what the most financially and politically
powerful men on Earth and their cheerleaders believe the NWO is, why not go
straight to the horse’s mouth:
"It is the system of nationalist individualism that has to go... We are
living in the end of the sovereign states....In the great struggle to evoke
a Westernized World Socialism, contemporary governments may
vanish...
Countless people... will hate the new world order...
and will die protesting against it."
H.G. Wells
“The New
World Order”,
1940
“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal
working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my
family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around
the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure
- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am
proud of it.”
David Rockefeller
Memoirs, page 405
"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states
will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such
a great idea after all."
Strobe Talbot
President Clinton's Deputy
Secretary of State, Time Magazine, July 20th, 1992
"There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international
anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical
Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may
identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the
communists, or any other group, and frequently does so.
I know of the
operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and
was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and
secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have,
for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments…
I
have objected both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies...
but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain
unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known...
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)... the American Branch of a
society which originated in England... believes national boundaries should
be obliterated and [a] one-world rule established."
Prof. Carroll
Quigley
mentor to Bill Clinton, from his book 'Tragedy And
Hope'
"Ultimately, our objective is to welcome the Soviet Union back into the
world order. Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of
nations."
President
George H.W. Bush
at Texas A&M University 1989
"We will succeed in the Gulf. And when we do, the world community will have
sent an enduring warning to any dictator or despot, present or future, who
contemplates outlaw aggression. The world can therefore seize this
opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order - where
brutality will go unrewarded, and aggression will meet collective
resistance."
President George H.W. Bush
State of the Union Address 1991
"The Final Act of the Uruguay Round, marking the conclusion of the most
ambitious trade negotiation of our century, will give birth - in Morocco -
to the World Trade Organization, the third pillar of the New World Order,
along with the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund."
Part
of full-page advertisement by the government of Morocco in The New York
Times (April 1994)
"To keep global resource use within prudent limits while the poor raise
their living standards, affluent societies need to consume less. Population,
consumption, technology, development, and the environment are linked in
complex relationships that bear closely on human welfare in the global
neighborhood.
Their effective and equitable management calls for a systemic,
long-term, global approach guided by the principle of sustainable
development, which has been the central lesson from the mounting ecological
dangers of recent times.
Its universal application is a priority among the
tasks of global governance."
United Nations
Our Global Neighborhood 1995
"What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but
the architecture of a new international system...a first step toward a new
world order."
Henry Kissinger
on NAFTA, Los Angeles Times
“All these new challenges are bringing together about the biggest
restructuring we’ve ever seen not just of the global economy but global
order as a whole. And two hundred years ago, a famous British foreign
secretary said that the new world had been called into existence to address
the balance of the old.
In 1989 another world war ended dominated by the
cold war and people talked then in 1990 of the new world order.
What they
meant then was a new political order. And what was not foreseen then but is
obvious now, from everything that we see and do, what we experience every
day of our life is the sheer scale and speed and scope of globalization..."
Prime Minister Gordon Brown
CBI Speech 2007
"The New World Order will have to be
built from the bottom up rather than from the top down... but in the end
run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will
accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault."
CFR member Richard Gardner
writing in the April 1974 issue of
the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs
More
here.
As we can see quite clearly from the direct quotes above, the New World
Order, and its pursuit of global government, is not some “delusion” built
upon exaggerated claims or impractical fears.
It is, in fact, a very OPEN
and freely admitted sociopolitical ideology held by a select and decidedly
influential group of people.
To label it “conspiracy theory” is absurd.
-
Are capitalist and socialist organizations “conspiracy theory”?
-
Are
political parties “conspiracy theories”?
-
Is Greenpeace a paranoid figment of
our imagination?
-
What about corporate lobbyists?
-
Was the purge of Stalinist
Russia a fable?
-
Did the Nazi party not actually seek to rule the world?
Obviously, these have all been substantial forces in the making of our
current era.
Throughout history, very real organizations of people with specific and
directed beliefs have sought to guide the course of our cultural progression
according to their personal values, sometimes using coordinated and
underhanded means.
The New World Order is no different in this regard. Its
uniqueness lay only in the insidious nature of its methods and the
complexity of its structure.
In fact, I would have to question the sanity of
anyone who DOESN’T believe that conspiracies are a constant and concrete
reality. Secretive groups of men have always sought power over others and
have always cloaked their thirst in the auspices of patriotism and
rationalism.
Another issue which average Americans stumble over is the fraudulent notion
of the left/right paradigm. For those within the ranks of the New World
Order, “left” and “right”, Democrat and Republican, are ultimately
meaningless terms. This is undeniable after one realizes that the leadership
on both sides of the aisle exhibit almost identical policy initiatives and
voting records.
When the two primary political entities of a system differ
only in rhetoric but not in action, one has to question whether they are
separate parties at all:
When a liberty minded network like Oath Keepers points out the underlying
New World Order-ness of a DoD program to train Russian soldiers on U.S.
soil, they are referring to the centralizing nature of the procedure, and
they are quite correct.
The problem is that those without any context or
background knowledge are completely unequipped to understand the
significance of the danger.
If only they knew about programs like the
Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement between Canada, the U.S., and
Mexico, constructed to dissolve sovereign military and economic functions
between the three countries:
What is to stop this trend of military homogenization with neighboring
foreign countries from spreading around the world, enabling corrupt
governments stocked with proponents of
globalism to use not only a country’s
own troops domestically, but the troops of other nations?
As the SPLC points out in an attempt to be clever:
this intermingling has
been going on for quite some time.
What they fail to mention is the terrible
track record these operations have amassed.
The ‘School Of The Americas’,
for example, used the same rhetoric of “international cooperation” and the
spreading of “democracy” as a fair trade when training foreign troops on
U.S. soil, yet, all the school seemed to produce were
tyrannical despots and
mass murderers.
Or, how about the
recent training of the Iranian dissident group
Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK)
at a secretive Department of Energy site in Nevada.
Are we supposed to believe that the training of Russian troops within our
border will produce better results?
These activities on the part of our government, in the end, do not serve the
best interests of the American people in the slightest, but what they do
serve, is the ideological addictions of the global elite. That is to say,
they further the interests of the New World Order.
As researchers and web journalists, we are supposed to be afraid to mention
the NWO.
We are supposed to refrain from using certain vocabulary exactly
because portions of the public are unfamiliar with it. To be honest, I have
to laugh at this dynamic. I think it far better to embrace the truth of a
matter, along with its dialogue.
To be unashamed and unabashed in the
exposition of the facts regardless of the ignorance of those around us.
The
New World Order is a definable and quantifiable political movement. Elitists
who praise it in public are showered with accolades while citizens who
oppose it in public are accused of paranoid ramblings. The less we care
about what others might think, the more dedicated we can be to the truth.
At
bottom, when it comes to matters of survival and principle, it is a far
better thing to be “crazy” and right, than “sane” and wrong.