The SearchVoat Forum

In this post, I will explain a few basic concepts about history and philosophy. This explanation, by no means exhaustive, is there just to give you people a rough understanding of what we're talking about. I know plenty of you may know these things already, but this is just so that we can all be pretty much on the same page. I am also offering you evidence of the true meaning of the phrase "new world order".

---------------------------------------------

Many of you have heard it before. Bush, Soros, Hitler, Kissinger, Sarkozy and many others. But it predates them all. The earliest quote I could find belong to none other than Karl Marx (Herschel Mordechai Levy)

Undeterred by this examination, the French Revolution gave rise to ideas which led beyond the ideas of the entire old world order. The revolutionary movement which began in 1789 in the Cercle Social, which in the middle of its course had as its chief representatives Leclerc and Roux, and which finally with Babeuf’s conspiracy was temporarily defeated, gave rise to the communist idea which Babeuf’s friend Buonarroti re-introduced in France after the Revolution of 1830. This idea, consistently developed, is the idea of the new world order.

Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... 06_3_c.htm

In case you don't know, the French Revolution was carried out by Freemasonry. This is a well-established fact among historians; to this day "Liberty, Fraternity and Equality" is a common motto in Freemasonic lodges. French revolutionary symbolism (phrygian cap and the stick, the eye of Providence, lady Liberty/Marianne, the handshake etc.) are esoteric in origin. In fact, the symbols of the handshake and the phrygian cap belonged to an esoteric school called the Mithraic Mysteries.

During the French revolution there were two factions; girondines (moderates, republicans) and jacobins (radicals, socialists). All of them were inspired by the ideas of the Enlightenment; Rousseau, Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire, etc. and had strong anti-clerical and anti-nobility views. Some even opposed the concept of private ownership and social hierarchies. For people like the aforementioned Buonarroti (FIlippo Buonarroti) the utopia that would replace the "old world order" (meaning feudalism and monarchical absolutism) would be a movement towards ideal communism. He's considered to have promoted the creation of republics as a preliminary step towards this ultimate age of communism.

In marxist theory, history can be though of as the opposition (or "dialectic") of two classes; the have and the have-not. For him, history was the clash of these two classes, which would derive in a new period of history (thesis, antithesis = synthesis). The next revolution would be proletarians vs. the burgeoisie; workers vs. capitalists. The proletariat would have to take over the means of production and establish the "dictatorship of the proletariat"; a regime in which the workers owned the means of production. By having all means in the hands of the state (socialism), the inequalities in society would disappear and a new man and a new age would appear, in which there is no more class struggle. The Comintern (Communist international) as well as the International Socialist have openly stated their desire for world goverment; uniting all mankind under a socialist state. Communist regimes have often tried to be "technocracies"; goverments in which "the experts" are in charge of the economy and society.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaos, War or a New World Order? is the name of a pamphlet advocating for world government by feminist (((Rosika Schwimmer))) and Lola Maverick Lloyd. Rosika Schwimmer had a very active political career; she was accused of being a socialist and also a spy for the Germans during WW1. She worked as a minister for the Swiss government and was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for her manifesto in favor of world government. Lola Maverick Lloyd was openly socialist.

If you are interested in reading their work, here's the source: https://www.nypl.org/sites/default/file ... df/cwg.pdf

-------------------------------------------------

The New World Order by H.G. Wells is a work in which he states his view for the future. He envisions a "scientific", worldwide socialist state, in which everybody "trusts the experts"; a technocracy in which scientists, engineers and other specialists decide the course of humanity. Of course, this utopia would totally respect the rights of man...

Let him explain:

Collectivisation means the handling of the common affairs of mankind by a common control responsible to the whole community. It means the suppression of go-as-you-please in social and economic affairs just as much as in international affairs. It means the frank abolition of profit-seeking and of every device by which human beings contrive to be parasitic on their fellow man. It is the practical realisation of the brotherhood of man through a common control.

The new and complete Revolution can be defined in a very few words. It is (a) outright world-socialism, scientifically planned and directed, plus (b) a sustained insistence upon law, law based on a fuller, more jealously conceived resentment of the personal Rights of Man, plus (c) the completest freedom of speech, criticism and publication, and sedulous expansion of the educational organisation to the ever-growing demands of the new order

There will be no day of days then when a new world order comes into being. Step by step and here and there it will arrive, and even as it comes into being it will develop fresh perspectives, discover unsuspected problems and go on to new adventures. No man, no group of men, will ever be singled out as its father or founder. For its maker will be not this man nor that man nor any man but Man, that being who is in some measure in every one of us. World order will be, like science, like most inventions, a social product, an innumerable number of personalities will have lived fine lives, pouring their best into the collective achievement.

This book would later inspire the UN declaration of "human rights" (a deceitful text which we'll discuss in a later post). However, this was not his only work regarding this beautiful "utopia". He had others like The Open Conspiracy, The Shape of things to come. H.G. Wells was close with Winston Churchill, who apparently coincided with him on many points (including welfare state and eugenics) and was a personal fan of his work. Churchill would later advocate for world government, as we'll see in another post.

------------------------------------------------

Take a look at this NYT article: NEW WORLD ORDER PLEDGED TO JEWS.

https://www.nytimes.com/1940/10/06/arch ... h-war.html

Arthur Greenwood, member without portfolio in the British War Cabinet, assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved an effort would be made to found a new world order based on the ideals of "justice and peace."

By this, he's conspicuously asking the american jewish lobby to support the cause of war through economic and propagandistic means. This does not mean that the NWO is exclusively jewish. As you'll see, although jews are overrepresented, they are not the only ones involved. This means that they sent a message to jews, who are natural globalists, asking for cooperation against a common enemy. It wasn't National Socialism. It was nationalism itself.
----------------------------------------

Antonio Gramsci, a prominent Italian marxist thinker, proposed a new way of understanding marxism. To Marx, the economic structure of society was the foundation of culture, which in turn reinforces said basis. Private ownership, he thought, gave rise to hierarchical societies, to certain religions, customs, traditions; all of them revolve around the material conditions of society. Behind every aspect of culture, there was always an underlying "capitalism". The revolution was intended to seize the means of production, thus eliminating the basis upon culture is founded. The revolution would naturally bring about a new culture, a new way of life, new types of families, etc.

Gramsci, while in prison, wrote in his diary on this. He believed that the cultural aspect should be transformed, to bring about the revolution. Infiltration and subversion. He's therefore one of the founders of what we call "cultural marxism".

He owned a weekly newspaper. The name? L'Ordine Nuovo, "The new order".

--------------------------------------

Adolf Hitler, the leader of National Socialism, inspired by Ariosophy, Thule society, Vril society and Theosophy, said:

The year 1941 will be, I am convinced, the historical year of a great European New Order

In this case, new world order means a post-war scenario in which a totalitarian state controls the economy; that is, national socialism. The only difference is that it is nationalistic rather than universal.

-----------------------------------

Alice Bailey, one of the founders of the New Age movement (based on the teachings of Theosophy) stated in her book Esoteric Psychology Vol II:

Fourth, the New Group of World Servers: These are the people who are beginning to form a new social order in the world. They belong to no party or government, in the partisan sense. They recognise all parties, all creeds, and all social and economic organisations; they recognise all governments. They are found in all nations and all religious organisations, and are occupied with the formulation of the new social order. From the purely physical angle, they are not fighting either for the best in the old order or for the betterment of world conditions. They consider that the old methods of fighting and partisanship and attack, and the ancient techniques of party battle have utterly failed, and that the means hitherto employed on all sides and by all parties and groups (fighting, violent partisanship of a leader or a cause, attacks on individuals whose ideas or manner of living is deemed detrimental to mankind), are out of date, having proved futile and unsuitable to bring in the desired condition of peace, economic plenty and understanding. They are occupied with the task of inaugurating the new world order by forming throughout the world—in every nation, city and town,—a grouping of people who belong to no party,take no sides either for or against, but who have as clear and definite a platform and as practical a programme as any other single party in the world today.

We are concerned with only one subject, the ushering in of the new world order. To do this, we must recognise the situation as it exists. We are occupied with the formation of that new party which will gather into its ranks all men of peace and good will, withoutinterfering with their specific loyalties and endeavours, though probably modifying their methods considerably where based on the old order. This new party can be regarded as the embodiment of the emerging Kingdom of God on earth, but it should be remembered that this kingdom is not a Christian kingdom or an earthly government. It is a grouping of all those who—belonging as they do to every world religion and every nation and type of political party—are free from the spirit of hatred and separativeness, and who seek to see right conditions established on earth through mutual good will.

[The New Group of World Servers] will provide an international unit, made up of intelligent men of good will, which must inevitably control world destiny and bring about world peace and thus organise the new world order. They will do this without the use of the old political machines, the violent propaganda, and the organised force which are characteristic of the old order. Their method is the method of education;they will mould public opinion and foster mutual good will and national, religious and economic inter-dependence. What they are really attempting to do is to awaken into fuller activity an aspect of human nature which is always present but which has hitherto been subordinated to selfish or ambitious ends. Human beings are innately kind when their minds are not distorted and their vision impaired by the false teaching of any selfish interest, political propaganda and racial or religious difficulties.

Although she claims there will be no earthly government, she does speak about the role of the United Nations in Problems of Humanity:

The true problem of the United Nations is a twofold one: it involves the right distribution of the world's resources so that there may be freedom from want, and it involves also the bringing about of a true equality of opportunity and of education for all men everywhere. The nations which have a wealth of resources are not owners; they are custodians of the world's riches and hold them in trust for their fellowmen. The time will inevitably come when—in the interest of peace and security—the capitalists in the various nations will be forced to realize this and will also be forced to substitute the principle of sharing for the ancient principle (which has hitherto governed them) of greedy grabbing.

There was a time—a hundred years or more ago—when a just distribution of the world's wealth would have been impossible. That is not true today. Statistics exist; computations have been made; investigation has penetrated into every field of the earth's resources and these investigations, computations and statistics have been published and are available to the public. The men in power in every nation know well exactly what food, minerals, oil and other necessities are available for worldwide use upon just and equitable lines. But these commodities are reserved by the nations involved as "talking and bargaining points". The problem of distribution is no longer difficult once the food of the world is freed from politics and from capitalism...

None of this will, however, take place until the United Nations begin to talk in terms of humanity as a whole and not in terms of boundaries, of technical objectives and fears, in terms of the bargaining value of oil, as in the Near East, or in the language of mistrust and suspicion. Russia distrusts the capitalism of the United States and—to a lesser degree—that of Great Britain; South America is rapidly learning to mistrust the United States on the ground of imperialism; both Great Britain and the United States mistrust Russia, on the basis of her spoken word, her use of the veto and her ignorance of western idealism.

The reason why the Soviet Union collapsed was because they couldn't command the entire economy. The allocation of resources without a price system eventually leads to many problems such as excess of certain products which are not needed, lack of information on whether production is efficient, scarcity, corruption, etc. This issue is called the economic calculation problem. She even got it wrong; not even with current technology can a government keep track of every single element in an economy, nor can it predict certain natural phenomena, human activity, scientific discoveries and inventions.

In short; new world order means, yet again: totalitarian world socialism ruled by an enlightened elite and central planning.

----------------------------------------------

George Monbiot's "Manifesto for a New World Order" is described as:

a plan for transforming the world into a decent place for all. All over the planet, the rich get richer while the poor are overtaken by debt and disaster. The world is run by a handful of executives who make the most important of decisions, concerning war, peace, debt, development, and the balance of trade. Without democracy at the global level, the rest of us are left in the dark. George Monbiot shows us how to turn on the light.

George Monbiot's website's motto is “I love not man the less, but Nature more.”

Source: https://www.monbiot.com/books/the-age-of-consent/

Again, more socialist narrative and "democracy at a global level"; world government. See the Welt Demokratie (world democracy) website. (https://weltdemokratie.de/)

-----------------------------------------

Nelson Mandela, whose fan club is led by the user CognitiveDissident, also spoke of a new world order, as did his foundation and representatives.

It is our view that this new world order should be characterized by, among other things: a democratic system of international relations; respect for the right of nations to self-determination and independence; respect for human rights; the elimination of poverty, deprivation and economic backwardness; an end to the practice of the resort to force to settle international disputes; protection of the environment; the strengthening and democratization of the institutions of this Organization to ensure that it plays its role as one of the principal architects of that new world order.

The world is becoming ever more interdependent. What each one of us does as an independent nation impacts on others. We therefore have no choice but to build a system of relations which, while it guarantees such independence and seeks to exclude the possibility of one country's imposing its will on another, creates the possibility for each to have a meaningful say in how we should live together in one peaceful, stable, prosperous and free world.

Source: http://www.mandela.gov.za/mandela_speec ... 3_unga.htm

Need for a New Economic Order

The urgent need for a New International Economic Order has been dramatically illustrated by the famine in Africa, the international debt crisis and the collapse of the price of oil and other raw materials. The hard and continuing struggle for the New Order is fundamentally about the redistribution of the world means of production, to bring about the economic independence of the Third World and enable its peoples to banish hunger, disease and ignorance for ever, to assert their dignity as human beings and bring fulfilment to their lives. The accomplishment of this objective would itself redress the political imbalance which threatens the independence of many nations, thanks to the extension of the infamous Monroe Doctrine by the present United States Administration to cover the entire Third World.

Source: https://www.sahistory.org.za/archive/ra ... nelson-and

The Annual Lecture, by every measure, was an outstanding success. UN Secretary-General António Guterres addressed a global audience with passion and with power. His call for a new world order, we have no doubt, will reverberate long into the future. We too, and many of our institutional partners, have been arguing that humanity needs a transformative social compact if it is to meet the multiple challenges of the twenty-first century. One which draws on ancient human knowledges, is rooted in respect for the Earth, and is dedicated to ending inequality and white supremacy in all their manifestations. As I said at the Lecture, “What a challenge; what a task!”

Source: https://www.nelsonmandela.org/news/entr ... orld-order

See my post on the UN to see who Antonio Guterres is...

In short, globalism, international redistribution of wealth, diversity, etc.

CONCLUSION

Next time you hear a news article or a political speech that includes the phrase "new world order" ask yourself whether this is simply a coincidence or a covert message to inform other co-conspirators of one's participation in the plot without informing the masses. Remember that politicians have their speeches carefully written and checked by professionals, and the H.G. Wells book was widely known at the time.

To be updated. Stay tuned.

Baha'i faith mentions NWO. See what their plans are in my post on the Baha'i: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=1977

Freemasonry magazine mentions "New world order" and "Novus Ordo Seclorum". See what it means in my post: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=1975