The Reasons We Fight the New World Order

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Count­less peo­ple … will hate the new world order … and will die protest­ing against it.” —H.G. Wells, The New World Order (1940)
Through­out our lives and through­out our cul­ture, we are con­di­tioned to ral­ly around con­cepts of false divi­sion. We are led to believe that Democ­rats and Repub­li­cans are sep­a­rate and oppos­ing par­ties, yet they are actu­al­ly two branch­es of the same polit­i­cal-con­trol mech­a­nism. We are led to believe that two nations such as the Unit­ed States and Rus­sia are geopo­lit­i­cal ene­mies, when, in fact, they are two pup­pet gov­ern­ments under the dom­i­nance of the same inter­na­tion­al financiers. Final­ly, we are told that the inter­na­tion­al bankers them­selves are some­how sep­a­rat­ed by bor­ders and philoso­phies, when the real­i­ty is all cen­tral banks answer to a sin­gu­lar author­i­ty: the Bank Of Inter­na­tion­al Set­tle­ments (BIS).
We are regaled with sto­ries of con­stant con­flict and divi­sion. Yet the truth is there is only one bat­tle that mat­ters, only one bat­tle that has ever mat­tered: the bat­tle between those peo­ple who seek to con­trol oth­ers and those peo­ple who sim­ply wish to be left alone.
The “New World Order” is a con­cept cre­at­ed not in the minds of “con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists” but in the minds of those who seek to con­trol oth­ers. These are the self-appoint­ed elite who fan­cy them­selves grand­ly qual­i­fied to deter­mine the des­tiny of every man, woman and child at the expense of indi­vid­ual free­dom and self-deter­mi­na­tion. In this arti­cle, I would like to exam­ine the nature of our war with the elite and why their the­o­ries on social engi­neer­ing are illog­i­cal, inad­e­quate and, in many cas­es, mali­cious and destruc­tive.
The ‘Greater Good’
I have always found it fas­ci­nat­ing that while elit­ists and NWO cham­pi­ons con­stant­ly pro­claim that moral­i­ty is rel­a­tive and that con­science is not inher­ent, some­how they are the ones who pos­sess the prop­er def­i­n­i­tion of the “greater good.” If “good” is in all cas­es rel­a­tive, then wouldn’t the “greater good” also be entire­ly rel­a­tive? This incon­sis­ten­cy in their rea­son­ing does not seem to stop them from forc­ing the mass­es through pro­pa­gan­da or vio­lence to accept their ver­sion of bet­ter judg­ment.
As many psy­chol­o­gists and anthro­pol­o­gists (includ­ing Carl Jung and Steven Pinker) have proven over decades of study, moral com­pass and con­science are not mere prod­ucts of envi­ron­ment; they are inborn ideals out­side of the realm of envi­ron­men­tal influ­ences. The greater good is inher­ent­ly and intu­itive­ly felt by most peo­ple. Whether one lis­tens to this voice of con­science is up to the indi­vid­ual.
It is no acci­dent that NWO elites end up con­tra­dict­ing them­selves by claim­ing moral­i­ty to be mean­ing­less while pro­nounc­ing their per­son­al moral­i­ty to be pure. In order to obtain pow­er over oth­ers, they must first con­vince mem­ber of the pub­lic that they are emp­ty ves­sels with­out mean­ing or direc­tion. They must con­vince the mass­es to ignore their inner voice of con­science. Only then will the pub­lic sac­ri­fice free­doms to pur­chase answers they don’t real­ly need from elites who don’t real­ly have them.
Col­lec­tivism
I don’t claim to know what ide­ol­o­gy would make a per­fect soci­ety, and I cer­tain­ly don’t know the exact solu­tions need­ed to get there. What I do know, though, is that no one else knows either. When­ev­er any­one takes a stage to announce that only he has the answers to the world’s prob­lems, I can­not help but be sus­pi­cious of his motives. Rarely, if ever, do I hear these peo­ple sug­gest that more lib­er­ty and more indi­vid­u­al­ism will make a bet­ter future. Instead, their solu­tion always entails less free­dom, more con­trol and more force in order to mold soci­ety towards their vision.
The utopia offered by the pow­er elite invari­ably demands a col­lec­tivist mind­set that the indi­vid­ual must give up his self-deter­mi­na­tion and inde­pen­dence so the group can sur­vive and thrive. The prob­lem is no soci­ety, cul­ture or col­lec­tive can exist with­out the efforts and con­tri­bu­tions of indi­vid­u­als. There­fore, the lib­er­ty and pros­per­i­ty of the indi­vid­ual is far more impor­tant than the safe­ty or even exis­tence of the group.
The elites under­stand this fact, which is why they do reserve some indi­vid­u­al­i­ty (for their own tiny cir­cle).
No mat­ter the guise pre­sent­ed — whether it be social­ism, com­mu­nism, fas­cism or some amal­ga­ma­tion of each — the goal is always the same: col­lec­tivism and slav­ery for the mass­es and unre­strained glut­tony for the oli­garchs.
The Phi­los­o­phy Of Force
If your idea of a bet­ter soci­ety is a good and ratio­nal one, you should not need to use force in order to get peo­ple to accept it. Only intrin­si­cal­ly destruc­tive ideas require the use of force to fright­en the pub­lic into com­pli­ance. The NWO is an idea that relies entire­ly on force.
Glob­al­iza­tion has been con­sis­tent­ly sold to us as part of the nat­ur­al pro­gres­sion of mankind, yet this “nat­ur­al pro­gres­sion” is always advanced through the use of lies, manip­u­la­tion, fear and vio­lence. The NWO con­cept is one of com­plete cen­tral­iza­tion, a cen­tral­iza­tion that can­not be achieved with­out the use of ter­ror, for who would sup­port the cre­ation of a mali­cious glob­al pow­er author­i­ty unless he was ter­ror­ized into doing so?
The only moral­ly accept­able use of force is the use of force to defend against attack. As the NWO relent­less­ly press­es for­ward its attack on our free­doms, we, the defend­ers, are labeled “vio­lent extrem­ists” if we refuse to go along qui­et­ly. The NWO’s depen­den­cy on force to pro­mote its val­ues makes it an inher­ent­ly flawed method­ol­o­gy derived from igno­rance and psy­chopa­thy, rather than wis­dom and truth.
Dis­hon­esty As Pol­i­cy
As with the use of vio­lence, the use of lies to achieve suc­cess auto­mat­i­cal­ly poi­sons what­ev­er good may have been had through one’s efforts. The elites com­mon­ly shrug off this log­ic by con­vinc­ing each oth­er that there is such a thing as a “noble lie” (both Saul Alin­sky and Leo Strauss, the gate­keep­ers of the false left/right par­a­digm, pro­mot­ed the use of “noble lies”) and that the mass­es need to be mis­led so that they can be fooled into doing what is best for them­selves and the world. This is, of course, a socio­path­ic game of self-aggran­dize­ment.
Lies are rarely, if ever, exploit­ed by peo­ple who want to make the lives of oth­er men bet­ter; lies are used by peo­ple who want to make their own lives bet­ter at the expense of oth­ers. Add to this the ego­ma­ni­a­cal asser­tion that the elites are lying for “our own good” when they are actu­al­ly only out to ele­vate their pow­er, and what you get is a stereo­typ­i­cal abu­sive rela­tion­ship on a glob­al scale.
Method­olo­gies that have legit­i­mate ben­e­fits to mankind delib­er­ate­ly seek truth and do not need to hide behind a veil of mis­in­for­ma­tion and mis­di­rec­tion. If a method­ol­o­gy requires secre­cy, occultism and deceit in order to estab­lish itself in a cul­ture, then it is most like­ly a neg­a­tive influ­ence on that cul­ture, not a pos­i­tive one.
The Hands Of The Few
Why does human­i­ty need a select elite at all? What pur­pose does this oli­garchy real­ly serve? Is cen­tral­ized pow­er real­ly as effi­cient and prac­ti­cal as it is paint­ed to be? Or is it actu­al­ly a hin­drance to mankind and an obsta­cle in our quest to bet­ter our­selves? Cham­pi­ons of the NOW argue that glob­al gov­er­nance is inevitable and that sov­er­eign­ty in any form is the cause of all our ills. How­ev­er, I find when I look back at the fin­er points of his­to­ry (the points they don’t teach you in col­lege text­books), the true cause of most of the world’s ills is obvi­ous­ly the exis­tence of elit­ist groups.
The “effi­cien­cy” of cen­tral­iza­tion is use­ful only to those at the top of the pyra­mid, because it gen­er­al­ly stands on a vast maze of impass­able bureau­cra­cy. It has to. No hyper-con­densed author­i­ty struc­ture can sur­vive if the cit­i­zen­ry is not made depen­dent on it. Cen­tral­iza­tion makes life hard­er for every­one by remov­ing our abil­i­ty to pro­vide our own essen­tials and make our own choic­es. That is to say, cen­tral­iza­tion removes all alter­na­tive options from the sys­tem, until the only easy path left is to bow down to the estab­lish­ment.
I have nev­er seen a sol­id exam­ple of cen­tral­iza­tion of pow­er result­ing in a bet­ter soci­ety or hap­pi­er peo­ple. I have also nev­er come across a select group of lead­ers intel­li­gent enough and com­pas­sion­ate enough to over­see and micro­man­age the intri­cate work­ings of the whole of the Earth. There is no use for the elite, so one must ask why we keep them around.
The Oppo­site View
Argu­ing over what should be done about the state of the world is a fruit­less endeav­or until one con­sid­ers what should be done about the state of his own life. As long as men are strick­en by bias, self­ish desire and lack of aware­ness, they will nev­er be able to deter­mine what is best for oth­er peo­ple. The oppos­ing phi­los­o­phy to the NWO, the phi­los­o­phy of the Lib­er­ty Move­ment, holds that no one has the right to impose his par­tic­u­lar ver­sion of a per­fect soci­ety on any­one else. As soon as some­one does, he has com­mit­ted a griev­ous attack against indi­vid­ual lib­er­ty — an attack that must be answered.
Our answer is sim­ply that the peo­ple who want to con­trol oth­ers be removed from posi­tions of con­trol and that the peo­ple who want to be left alone just be left alone. Asso­ci­a­tion and par­tic­i­pa­tion should always be vol­un­tary; oth­er­wise, soci­ety los­es val­ue. This is not anar­chy in the sense that con­se­quence is removed. Rather, the rights of the indi­vid­ual become para­mount; and the lib­er­ties of the one take prece­dence over the ever vaporous demands of some abstract group.
The only rea­son for any gov­ern­ment to exist is to safe­guard indi­vid­ual free­dom. Peri­od. The orig­i­nal intent of America’s Found­ing Fathers was to estab­lish a Nation that fos­tered this ide­al. When gov­ern­ment or oli­garchy steps out­side the bounds of this man­date, it is no longer pro­vid­ing the ser­vice it was orig­i­nal­ly designed for; and it must be dis­man­tled. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, it is a uni­ver­sal rule that uncom­pro­mis­ing tyran­ny must often be met with uncom­pro­mis­ing rev­o­lu­tion.
When a new sys­tem aris­es that can­ni­bal­izes the old, enslaves our future, uses aggres­sion against us and muti­lates our found­ing prin­ci­ples in the name of arbi­trary progress, that new sys­tem must be defied and ulti­mate­ly destroyed. The NWO ide­ol­o­gy rep­re­sents one of the most egre­gious crimes against human­i­ty of all time, pos­ing in drag as our great­est hope. It is based, fun­da­men­tal­ly, on every­thing that makes life ter­ri­ble for the com­mon man and every­thing our inher­ent con­science fights against.
We would be far bet­ter served as a species if we were to turn our back on the NWO alto­geth­er and move swift­ly in the oppo­site direc­tion. Imag­ine what tomor­row would be like if there were no con­trollers, no sta­tists, no despots and no philoso­pher kings. Imag­ine a tomor­row where peo­ple respect the nat­ur­al-born rights of oth­ers. Imag­ine a tomor­row where people’s irra­tional fears are not allowed to inhib­it oth­er people’s free­doms. Imag­ine a tomor­row where inter­ac­tions between cit­i­zens and gov­ern­ment are rare or nonex­is­tent. Imag­ine if we could live our days in peace, inde­pen­dent­ly build­ing our own des­tinies, in which our suc­cess­es and fail­ures are our own, rather than the prop­er­ty of the col­lec­tive. It may not be a per­fect world, or a utopia, but I sus­pect it would be a much bet­ter place than we live in today.