Still a Conspiracy Theory: The New World Order

Wikipedia, that bastion of truthiness still regards the term “new world order” a “conspiracy theory,” despite the fact that was mentioned in connection with the G20 this week hundreds of times by both global leaders and in news reports.

Prime Minister of Great Britain, Gordon Brown himself yesterday announced that the G20 heralded the creation of a “new world order” which would involve increased global regulation of economic markets.

Google News searches provide well over a thousand results of reports including the term “new world order” over the past two of weeks.

In spite of the fact that world leaders have been talking about a “new world order” for decades, in the context of the political agenda to diminish the power of sovereign states in favor of a move towards global governance, it is still regarded as a delusion of “paranoid” conspiracy theorists by the establishment media until very recently.

Even Fox News and Sean Hannity are throwing their arms in the air, and admitting that the “conspiracy theorists were right” as the agenda for global government is openly announced.

However, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which is infamous for being completely infested with maniacally obsessive trolls, crooked insiders, and establishment apologists, claims that in its warped version of reality, the “new world order” as a sinister concept is still a nebulous “conspiracy theory.”

New World Order: So-called “conspiracy theorists” had to endure decades of ridicule for daring to claim such a political agenda existed - now it’s openly discussed in every major news outlet.

But according to Wikipedia, it’s still a “conspiracy theory”.

It attempts to make the differentiation by claiming that the new world order in the context of a sinister, undemocratic, and ultimately totalitarian political agenda is a characterization embraced only by “paranoid” conspiracy theorists.

I presume, that Wikipedia is willing only to accept the fact, that an agenda to create a “new world order” exists, if that “new world order” equates to a happy, loving, positive move, where world bankers, and global elitists really have the best interests of all of us at heart. Forgive me for being somewhat skeptical of that conclusion.

In reality, as is exhaustively documented, the “new world order” has nothing to do with saving the world, and everything to do with centralizing power, and control into the hands of a gaggle of criminal globalists, who are concerned about nothing other than increasing their domination over the planet - at the expense of the rest us.

The “new world order” is totalitarian by its very nature - shifting power away from sovereign countries to global institutions which have no accountability to the general public whatsoever, and through which the public has no voice or influence. That cannot be defined as anything else but undemocratic. There is no such thing as a “benign new world order.”

This very agenda was again enunciated this week by World Bank President and Bilderberg elitist Robert Zoellick, who openly admitted the plan to eliminate national sovereignty, and impose a global government during a speech on the eve of the G20 summit.
Speaking of the agenda to increase not just funding, but power for international organizations on the back of the financial crisis, Zoellick stated, “If leaders are serious about creating new global responsibilities, or governance, let them start by modernizing multilateralism to empower the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank Group to monitor national policies.”

Proponents of a “new world order” have always disguised their rhetoric with flowery notions of achieving some kind of global utopia, but behind the scenes the real agenda has always been sinister, nepotistic, and destructive to any reasonable notion of democratic freedom.

It’s about time the establishment media stopped parroting the words of globalists, and flatly repeating the term “new world order” like it was going out of fashion, and actually started asking real questions about what it really means.

Wikipedia?

Submitted by Davids mom on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 5:16pm.

Surely you jest!!

Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world; anyone can edit it.

login to post comments

David's Mom

Submitted by The Wedge on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 5:24pm.

Anyone can edit it, still? I thought that they did away with that and now have a team of "super editors"? I didn't even read the above article, just curious about the wikipedia statement that you made

login to post comments