The new word order

The term «new world order» refers to a new period of history evidencing dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power in international relations. Despite varied interpretations of this term, it is primarily associated with the ideological notion of world governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address global problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve.

The phrase «new world order» or similar language was used in the period toward the end of the First World War in relation to Woodrow Wilson’s vision for international peace;^[a] Wilson called for a League of Nations to prevent aggression and conflict. The League of Nations failed, and neither Franklin Roosevelt nor Harry S. Truman used the phrase «new world order» much when speaking publicly on international peace and cooperation.^[1][2] Indeed, in some instances when Roosevelt used the phrase «new world order», or «new order in the world» it was to refer to Axis powers plans for world domination.^[3][4][5][6] Truman speeches have phrases such as «better world order», «peaceful world order», «moral world order» and «world order based on law», but not so much «new world order».^[2] Although Roosevelt and Truman may have been hesitant to use the phrase, commentators have applied the term retroactively to the order put in place by the World War II victors including the United Nations and the Bretton Woods system as a «new world order.»^[7][8]

The most widely discussed application of the phrase of recent times came at the end of the Cold War. Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George H. W. Bush used the term to try to define the nature of the post-Cold War era and the spirit of great power cooperation that they hoped might materialize. Gorbachev’s initial formulation was wide-ranging and idealistic, but his ability to press for it was severely limited by the internal crisis of the Soviet system. In comparison, Bush’s vision was not less circumscribed: «A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we’ve known».^[9] However, given the new unipolar status of the United States, Bush’s vision was realistic in saying that «there is no substitute for American leadership».^[9] The Gulf War of 1991 was regarded as the first test of the new world order: «Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. … The Gulf War put this new world to its first test».^[10][11]

Historical usage[edit]

The phrase «new world order» was explicitly used in connection with Woodrow Wilson’s global zeitgeist during the period just after World War I during the formation of the League of Nations. «The war to end all wars» had been a powerful catalyst in international politics, and many felt the world could simply no longer operate as it once had. World War I had been justified not only in terms of U.S. national interest, but in moral terms—to «make the world safe for democracy». After the war, Wilson argued for a new world order which transcended traditional great power politics, instead emphasizing collective security, democracy and self-determination. However, the United States Senate rejected membership of the League of Nations, which Wilson believed to be the key to a new world order. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge argued that American policy should be based on human nature «as it is, not as it ought to be».^[12] Nazi activist and future German leader Adolf Hitler also used the term in 1928.^{[13][failed verification]}

The term fell from use when it became clear the League was not living up to expectations and as a consequence was used very little during the formation of the United Nations. Former United Nations Secretary General Kurt Waldheim felt that this new world order was a projection of the American dream into Europe and that in its naïveté the idea of a new order had been used to further the parochial interests of Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau, thus ensuring the League’s eventual failure.^[14] Although some have claimed the phrase was not used at all, Virginia Gildersleeve, the sole female delegate to the San Francisco Conference in April 1945, did use it in an interview with The New York Times.^{[citation needed]}

The phrase was used by some in retrospect when assessing the creation of the post-World War II set of international institutions, including the United Nations; the U.S. security alliances such as NATO; the Bretton Woods system of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; and even the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan were seen as characterizing or comprising this new order.^{[citation needed]}

H. G. Wells wrote a book published in 1940 entitled The New World Order. It addressed the ideal of a world without war in which law and order emanated from a world governing body and examined various proposals and ideas.

Franklin D. Roosevelt in his «Armistice Day Address Before the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier» on November 11, 1940, referred to Novus ordo seclorum, inscribed on the Great Seal of the United States and traced to antiquity. By this phrase, Virgil announced the Augustan Golden Age. That Age was the dawn of the divine universal monarchy, but Roosevelt on that occasion promised to take the world order into the opposite democratic direction led by the United States and Britain.^[15]

On June 6, 1966, New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy used the phrase «new world society» in his Day of Affirmation Address in South Africa.^[16]

Post-Cold War usage[edit]

The phrase «new world order» as used to herald in the post-Cold War era had no developed or substantive definition. There appear to have been three distinct periods in which it was progressively redefined, first by the Soviets and later by the United States before the Malta Conference and again after George H. W. Bush’s speech of September 11, 1990.

1. At first, the new world order dealt almost exclusively with nuclear disarmament and security arrangements. Mikhail Gorbachev would then expand the phrase to include United Nations strengthening and great power cooperation on a range of North–South economic, and security problems. Implications for NATO, the Warsaw Pact, and European integration were subsequently included.
2. The Malta Conference collected these various expectations and they were fleshed out in more detail by the press. German reunification, human rights and the polarity of the international system were then included.
3. The Gulf War crisis refocused the term on superpower cooperation and regional crises. Economic North–South problems, the integration of the Soviets into the international system and the changes in economic and military polarity received greater attention.

Mikhail Gorbachev’s formulation[edit]

The first press reference to the phrase came from Russo-Indian talks on November 21, 1988. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi used the term in reference to the commitments made by the Soviet Union through the Declaration of Delhi of two years previous. The new world order which he describes is characterized by «non-violence and the principles of peaceful coexistence». He also includes the possibility of a sustained peace, an alternative to the nuclear balance of terror, dismantling of nuclear weapons systems, significant cuts in strategic arms and eventually a general and complete disarmament.^[17]

Three days later, a Guardian article quotes NATO Secretary General Manfred Wörner as saying that the Soviets have come close to accepting NATO’s doctrine of military stability based on a mix of nuclear as well as conventional arms. In his opinion, this would spur the creation of «a new security framework» and a move towards «a new world order».^[18]

However, the principal statement creating the new world order concept came from Mikhail Gorbachev’s December 7, 1988 speech to the United Nations General Assembly. His formulation included an extensive list of ideas in creating a new order. He advocated strengthening the central role of the United Nations and the active involvement of all members—the Cold War had prevented the United Nations and its Security Council from performing their roles as initially envisioned. The de-ideologizing of relations among states was the mechanism through which this new level of cooperation could be achieved. Concurrently, Gorbachev recognized only one world economy—essentially an end to economic blocs. Furthermore, he advocated Soviet entry into several important international organizations, such as the CSCE and International Court of Justice. Reinvigoration of the United Nations peacekeeping role and recognition that superpower cooperation can and will lead to the resolution of regional conflicts was especially key in his conception of cooperation. He argued that the use of force or the threat of the use of force was no longer legitimate and that the strong must demonstrate restraint toward the weak. As the major powers of the world, he foresaw the United States, the Soviet Union, Europe, India, China, Japan and Brazil. He asked for cooperation on environmental protection, on debt relief for developing countries, on disarmament of nuclear weapons, on preservation of the ABM treaty and on a convention for the elimination of chemical weapons. At the same time, he promised the significant withdrawal of Soviet forces from Eastern Europe and Asia as well as an end to the jamming of Radio Liberty.

Gorbachev described a phenomenon that could be described as a global political awakening:

We are witnessing most profound social change. Whether in the East or the South, the West or the North, hundreds of millions of people, new nations and states, new public movements and ideologies have moved to the forefront of history. Broad-based and frequently turbulent popular movements have given expression, in a multidimensional and contradictory way, to a longing for independence, democracy and social justice. The idea of democratizing the entire world order has become a powerful socio-political force. At the same time, the scientific and technological revolution has turned many economic, food, energy, environmental, information and population problems, which only recently we treated as national or regional ones, into global problems. Thanks to the advances in mass media and means of transportation, the world seems to have become more visible and tangible. International communication has become easier than ever before.

In the press, Gorbachev was compared to Woodrow Wilson giving the Fourteen Points, to Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill promulgating the Atlantic Charter and to George Marshall and Harry S. Truman building the Western Alliance. While visionary, his speech was to be approached with caution as he was seen as attempting a fundamental redefinition of international relationships, on economic and environmental levels. His support «for independence, democracy and social justice» was highlighted, but the principle message taken from his speech was that of a new world order based on pluralism, tolerance and cooperation.^[19]

For a new type of progress throughout the world to become a reality, everyone must change. Tolerance is the alpha and omega of a new world order.

— Gorbachev, June 1990

A month later, Time Magazine ran a longer analysis of the speech and its possible implications. The promises of a new world order based on the forswearing of military use of force was viewed partially as a threat, which might «lure the West toward complacency» and «woo Western Europe into neutered neutralism». However, the more overriding threat was that the West did not yet have any imaginative response to Gorbachev—leaving the Soviets with the moral initiative and solidifying Gorbachev’s place as «the most popular world leader in much of Western Europe». The article noted as important his de-ideologized stance, willingness to give up use of force, commitment to troop cuts in Eastern Europe (accelerating political change there) and compliance with the ABM treaty. According to the article, the new world order seemed to imply shifting of resources from military to domestic needs; a world community of states based on the rule of law; a dwindling of security alliances like NATO and the Warsaw Pact; and an inevitable move toward European integration. The author of the Time article felt that George H. W. Bush should counter Gorbachev’s «common home» rhetoric toward the Europeans with the idea of «common ideals», turning an alliance of necessity into one of shared values. Gorbachev’s repudiation of expansionism leaves the United States in a good position, no longer having to support anti-communist dictators and able to pursue better goals such as the environment; nonproliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; reducing famine and poverty; and resolving regional conflicts.^[20] In A World Transformed, Bush and Brent Scowcroft’s similarly concern about losing leadership to Gorbachev is noted and they worry that the Europeans might stop following the U.S. if it appears to drag its feet.^[21]

As Europe passed into the new year, the implications of the new world order for the European Community surfaced. The European Community was seen as the vehicle for integrating East and West in such a manner that they could «pool their resources and defend their specific interests in dealings with those superpowers on something more like equal terms». It would be less exclusively tied to the U.S. and stretch «from Brest to Brest-Litovsk, or at least from Dublin to Lublin».^[22] By July 1989, newspapers were still criticizing Bush for his lack of response to Gorbachev’s proposals. Bush visited Europe, but «left undefined for those on both sides of the Iron Curtain his vision for the new world order», leading commentators to view the U.S. as over-cautious and reactive, rather than pursuing long-range strategic goals.^[23]

Malta Conference[edit]

In A World Transformed, Bush and Scowcroft detail their crafting of a strategy aimed at flooding Gorbachev with proposals at the Malta Conference to catch him off guard, preventing the U.S. from coming out of the summit on the defensive.^[24]

The Malta Conference on December 2–3, 1989 reinvigorated discussion of the new world order. Various new concepts arose in the press as elements on the new order. Commentators expected the replacement of containment with superpower cooperation. This cooperation might then tackle problems such as reducing armaments and troop deployments, settling regional disputes, stimulating economic growth, lessening East–West trade restrictions, the inclusion of the Soviets in international economic institutions and protecting the environment. Pursuant to superpower cooperation, a new role for NATO was forecast, with the organization perhaps changing into a forum for negotiation and treaty verification, or even a wholesale dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pact following the resurrection of the four-power framework from World War II (i.e. the United States, United Kingdom, France and Russia). However, continued U.S. military presence in Europe was expected to help contain «historic antagonisms», thus making possible a new European order.^[25]

In Europe, German reunification was seen as part of the new order. However, Strobe Talbott saw it as more of a brake on the new era and believed Malta to be a holding action on part of the superpowers designed to forestall the «new world order» because of the German question.^[26] Political change in Eastern Europe also arose on the agenda. The Eastern Europeans believed that the new world order did not signify superpower leadership, but that superpower dominance was coming to an end.^[27]

In general, the new security structure arising from superpower cooperation seemed to indicate to observers that the new world order would be based on the principles of political liberty, self-determination and non-intervention. This would mean an end to the sponsoring of military conflicts in third countries, restrictions on global arms sales, and greater engagement in the Middle East (especially regarding Syria, Palestine and Israel). The U.S. might use this opportunity to more emphatically promote human rights in China and South Africa.^[25]

Economically, debt relief was expected to be a significant issue as East–West competition would give way to North–South cooperation. Economic tripolarity would arise with the U.S., Germany and Japan as the three motors of world growth. Meanwhile, the Soviet social and economic crisis was manifestly going to limit its ability to project power abroad, thus necessitating continued U.S. leadership.^[25]

Commentators assessing the results of the Conference and how the pronouncements measured up to expectations, were underwhelmed. Bush was criticized for taking refuge behind notions of «status quo-plus» rather than a full commitment to new world order. Others noted that Bush thus far failed to satisfy the out-of-control «soaring expectations» that Gorbachev’s speech unleashed.^[25]

Gulf War and Bush’s formulation[edit]

Bush started to take the initiative from Gorbachev during the run-up to the Persian Gulf War, when he began to define the elements of the new world order as he saw it and link the new order’s success to the international community’s response in Kuwait.

Initial agreement by the Soviets to allow action against Saddam Hussein highlighted this linkage in the press. The Washington Post declared that this superpower cooperation demonstrates that the Soviet Union has joined the international community and that in the new world order Saddam faces not just the U.S., but the international community itself.^[28] A New York Times editorial was the first to assert that at stake in the collective response to Saddam was «nothing less than the new world order which Bush and other leaders struggle to shape».^[29]

In A World Transformed, Scowcroft notes that Bush even offered to have Soviet troops amongst the coalition forces liberating Kuwait. Bush places the fate of the new world order on the ability of the U.S. and the Soviet Union to respond to Hussein’s aggression.^[30] The idea that the Persian Gulf War would usher in the new world order began to take shape. Bush notes that the «premise [was] that the United States henceforth would be obligated to lead the world community to an unprecedented degree, as demonstrated by the Iraqi crisis, and that we should attempt to pursue our national interests, wherever possible, within a framework of concert with our friends and the international community».^[31]

On March 6, 1991, President Bush addressed Congress in a speech often cited as the Bush administration’s principal policy statement on the new world order in the Middle East following the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.^[32][10] Michael Oren summarizes the speech, saying: «The president proceeded to outline his plan for maintaining a permanent U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf, for providing funds for Middle East development, and for instituting safeguards against the spread of unconventional weapons. The centerpiece of his program, however, was the achievement of an Arab-Israeli treaty based on the territory-for-peace principle and the fulfillment of Palestinian rights». As a first step, Bush announced his intention to reconvene the international peace conference in Madrid.^[32]

A pivotal point came with Bush’s September 11, 1990 «Toward a New World Order» speech (full text) to a joint session of Congress. This time it was Bush, not Gorbachev, whose idealism was compared to Woodrow Wilson and to Franklin D. Roosevelt at the creation of the United Nations. Key points picked up in the press were:

• Commitment to U.S. strength, such that it can lead the world toward rule of law, rather than use of force. The Gulf crisis was seen as a reminder that the U.S. must continue to lead and that military strength does matter, but that the resulting new world order should make military force less important in the future.
• Soviet–American partnership in cooperation toward making the world safe for democracy, making possible the goals of the United Nations for the first time since its inception. Some countered that this was unlikely and that ideological tensions would remain, such that the two superpowers could be partners of convenience for specific and limited goals only. The inability of the Soviet Union to project force abroad was another factor in skepticism toward such a partnership.
• Another caveat raised was that the new world order was based not on U.S.-Soviet cooperation, but really on Bush-Gorbachev cooperation and that the personal diplomacy made the entire concept exceedingly fragile.
• Future cleavages were to be economic, not ideological, with the First and Second World cooperating to contain regional instability in the Third World. Russia could become an ally against economic assaults from Asia, Islamic terrorism and drugs from Latin America.
• Soviet integration into world economic institutions such as the G7 and establishment of ties with the European Community.
• Restoration of German sovereignty and Cambodia’s acceptance of the United Nations Security Council’s peace plan on the day previous to the speech were seen as signs of what to expect in the new world order.
• The reemergence of Germany and Japan as members of the great powers and concomitant reform of the United Nations Security Council was seen as necessary for great power cooperation and reinvigorated United Nations leadership
• Europe was seen as taking the lead on building their own world order while the U.S. was relegated to the sidelines. The rationale for U.S. presence on the continent was vanishing and the Persian Gulf crisis was seen as incapable of rallying Europe. Instead, Europe was discussing the European Community, the CSCE and relations with the Soviet Union. Gorbachev even proposed an all-European security council to replace the CSCE, in effect superseding the increasingly irrelevant NATO.
• A very few postulated a bi-polar new order of U.S. power and United Nations moral authority, the first as global policeman, the second as global judge and jury. The order would be collectivist in which decisions and responsibility would be shared.

These were the common themes which emerged from reporting about Bush’s speech and its implications.^[33]

Critics held that Bush and Baker remained too vague about what exactly the order entailed:

Does it mean a strengthened U.N.? And new regional security arrangements in the gulf and elsewhere? Will the U.S. be willing to put its own military under international leadership? In the Persian Gulf, Mr. Bush has rejected a UN command outright. Sometimes, when Administration officials describe their goals, they say the U.S. must reduce its military burden and commitment. Other times, they appear determined to seek new arrangements to preserve U.S. military supremacy and to justify new expenditures.

The New York Times observed that the American left was calling the new world order a «rationalization for imperial ambitions» in the Middle East while the right rejected new security arrangements altogether and fulminated about any possibility of United Nations revival.^[34] Pat Buchanan predicted that the Persian Gulf War would in fact be the demise of the new world order, the concept of United Nations peacekeeping and the U.S.’s role as global policeman.^[35]

The Los Angeles Times reported that the speech signified more than just the rhetoric about superpower cooperation. In fact, the deeper reality of the new world order was the U.S.’ emergence «as the single greatest power in a multipolar world». Moscow was crippled by internal problems and thus unable to project power abroad. While hampered by economic malaise, the U.S. was militarily unconstrained for the first time since the end of World War II. Militarily, it was now a unipolar world as illustrated by the Persian Gulf crisis. While diplomatic rhetoric stressed a U.S.-Soviet partnership, the U.S. was deploying troops to Saudi Arabia (a mere 700 miles from the Soviet frontier) and was preparing for war against a former Soviet client state. Further, U.S. authority over the Soviets was displayed in 1. The unification of Germany, withdrawal of Soviet forces, and almost open appeal to Washington for aid in managing the Soviet transition to democracy; 2. Withdrawal of Soviet support for Third World clients; and 3) Soviets seeking economic aid through membership in Western international economic and trade communities.^[36]

The speech was indeed pivotal but the meaning hidden. A pivotal interpretation of the speech came the same month a week later on September 18, 1990. Charles Krauthammer then delivered a lecture in Washington in which he introduced the idea of American unipolarity. By the fall 1990, his essay was published in Foreign Affairs titled «The Unipolar Moment».^[37] It had little to do with Kuwait. The main point was the following:

It has been assumed that the old bipolar world would beget a multipolar world… The immediate post-Cold War world is not multipolar. It is unipolar. The center of world power is an unchallenged superpower, the United States, attended by its Western allies.^[38]

In fact, as Lawrence Freedman commented in 1991, a «unipolar» world is now taken seriously. He details:

An underlying theme in all the discussions is that the United States has now acquired a preeminent position in the international hierarchy. This situation has developed because of the precipitate decline of the Soviet Union. Bush himself has indicated that it is the new relationship with Moscow that creates the possibility for his new order. For many analysts, therefore, the new order’s essential feature is not the values it is said to embody nor the principles upon which it is to be based, but that it has the United States at its center… In effect, the debate is over the consequences of the West’s victory in the Cold War rather than in the Gulf for the generality of international conflicts.^[39]

Washington’s capacity to exert overwhelming military power and leadership over a multinational coalition provides the «basis for a Pax Americana«. Indeed, one of the problems with Bush’s phrase was that «a call for ‘order’ from Washington chills practically everyone else, because it sounds suspiciously like a Pax Americana«.^[40] The unipolarity, Krauthammer noted, is the «most striking feature of the post-Cold War world».^[38] The article proved to be epochal. Twelve years later, Krauthammer in «The Unipolar Moment Revisited»^[41] stated that the «moment» is lasting and lasting with «acceleration».^[42] He replied to those who still refused to acknowledge the fact of unipolarity: «If today’s American primacy does not constitute unipolarity, then nothing ever will».^[42] In 1990, Krauthammer had estimated that the «moment» will last forty years at best, but he adjusted the estimation in 2002: «Today, it seems rather modest. The unipolar moment has become the unipolar era».^[43] On the latter occasion, Krauthammer added perhaps his most significant comment—the new unipolar world order represents a «unique to modern history» structure.^[44]

Presaging the Iraq War of 2003[edit]

The Economist published an article explaining the drive toward the Persian Gulf War in terms presaging the run-up to the Iraq War of 2003. The author notes directly that despite the coalition, in the minds of most governments this is the U.S.’ war and George W. Bush that «chose to stake his political life on defeating Mr Hussein». An attack on Iraq would certainly shatter Bush’s alliance, they assert, predicting calls from United Nations Security Council members saying that diplomacy should have been given more time and that they will not wish to allow a course of action «that leaves America sitting too prettily as sole remaining superpower». When the unanimity of the Security Council ends, «all that lovely talk about the new world order» will too. When casualties mount, «Bush will be called a warmonger, an imperialist and a bully». The article goes on to say that Bush and James Baker’s speechifying cannot save the new world order once they launch a controversial war. It closes noting that a wide consensus is not necessary for U.S. action—only a hardcore of supporters, namely Gulf Cooperation Council states (including Saudi Arabia), Egypt and Britain. The rest need only not interfere.^[45]

In a passage with similar echoes of the future, Bush and Scowcroft explain in A World Transformed the role of the United Nations Secretary-General in attempting to avert the Persian Gulf War. Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar arrived at Camp David to ask what he could do to head off the war. Bush told him that it was important that we get full implementation on every United Nations resolution: «If we compromise, we weaken the UN and our own credibility in building this new world order,» I said. «I think Saddam Hussein doesn’t believe force will be used—or if it is, he can produce a stalemate». Additional meetings between Baker or Pérez and the Iraqis are rejected for fear that they will simply come back empty-handed once again. Bush feared that Javier will be cover for Hussein’s manipulations. Pérez suggested another Security Council meeting, but Bush saw no reason for one.^[46]

Following the Persian Gulf War[edit]

Following the Persian Gulf War which was seen as the crucible in which great power cooperation and collective security would emerge the new norms of the era—several academic assessments of the «new world order» idea were published.

John Lewis Gaddis, a Cold War historian, wrote in Foreign Affairs about what he saw as the key characteristics of the potential new order, namely unchallenged American primacy, increasing integration, resurgent nationalism and religiosity, a diffusion of security threats and collective security. He casts the fundamental challenge as one of integration versus fragmentation and the concomitant benefits and dangers associated with each. Changes in communications, the international economic system, the nature of security threats and the rapid spread of new ideas would prevent nations from retreating into isolation. In light of this, Gaddis sees a chance for the democratic peace predicted by liberal international relations theorists to come closer to reality. However, he illustrates that not only is the fragmentary pressure of nationalism manifest in the former Communist bloc countries and the Third World, but it is also a considerable factor in the West. Further, a revitalized Islam could play both integrating and fragmenting roles—emphasizing common identity, but also contributing to new conflicts that could resemble the Lebanese Civil War. The integration coming from the new order could also aggravate ecological, demographic and epidemic threats. National self-determination, leading to the breakup and reunification of states (such as Yugoslavia on one hand and Germany on the other) could signal abrupt shifts in the balance of power with a destabilizing effect. Integrated markets, especially energy markets, are now a security liability for the world economic system as events affecting energy security in one part of the globe could threaten countries far removed from potential conflicts. Finally, diffusion of security threats required a new security paradigm involving low-intensity, but more frequent deployment of peacekeeping troops—a type of mission that is hard to sustain under budgetary or public opinion pressure. Gaddis called for aid to Eastern European countries, updated security and economic regimes for Europe, United Nations-based regional conflict resolution, a slower pace of international economic integration and paying off the U.S. debt.^[47]

However, statesman Strobe Talbott wrote of the new world order that it was only in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War that the United Nations took a step toward redefining its role to take account of both interstate relations and intrastate events. Furthermore, he asserted that it was only as an unintended postscript to Desert Storm that Bush gave meaning to the «new world order» slogan. By the end of the year, Bush stopped talking about a new world order and his advisers explained that he had dropped the phrase because he felt it suggested more enthusiasm for the changes sweeping the planet than he actually felt. As an antidote to the uncertainties of the world, he wanted to stress the old verities of territorial integrity, national sovereignty and international stability.^[48] David Gergen suggested at the time that it was the recession of 1991–1992 which finally killed the new world order idea within the White House. The economic downturn took a deeper psychological toll than expected while domestic politics were increasingly frustrated by paralysis, with the result that the United States toward the end of 1991 turned increasingly pessimistic, inward and nationalistic.^[49]

In 1992, Hans Köchler published a critical assessment of the notion of the «new world order», describing it as an ideological tool of legitimation of the global exercise of power by the U.S. in a unipolar environment.^[50] In Joseph Nye’s analysis (1992), the collapse of the Soviet Union did not issue in a new world order per se, but rather simply allowed for the reappearance of the liberal institutional order that was supposed to have come into effect in 1945. However, this success of this order was not a fait accomplis.^[51] Three years later, John Ikenberry would reaffirm Nye’s idea of a reclamation of the ideal post-World War II order, but would dispute the nay-sayers who had predicted post-Cold War chaos.^[52] By 1997, Anne-Marie Slaughter produced an analysis calling the restoration of the post-World War II order a «chimera … infeasible at best and dangerous at worst». In her view, the new order was not a liberal institutionalist one, but one in which state authority disaggregated and decentralized in the face of globalization.^[53]

Samuel Huntington wrote critically of the «new world order» and of Francis Fukuyama’s End of History theory in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order:

The expectation of harmony was widely shared. Political and intellectual leaders elaborated similar views. The Berlin wall had come down, communist regimes had collapsed, the United Nations was to assume a new importance, the former Cold War rivals would engage in «partnership» and a «grand bargain,» peacekeeping and peacemaking would be the order of the day. The President of the world’s leading country proclaimed the «new world order»…

The moment of euphoria at the end of the Cold War generated an illusion of harmony, which was soon revealed to be exactly that. The world became different in the early 1990s, but not necessarily more peaceful. Change was inevitable; progress was not… The illusion of harmony at the end of that Cold War was soon dissipated by the multiplication of ethnic conflicts and «ethnic cleansing,» the breakdown of law and order, the emergence of new patterns of alliance and conflict among states, the resurgence of neo-communist and neo-fascist movements, intensification of religious fundamentalism, the end of the «diplomacy of smiles» and «policy of yes» in Russia’s relations with the West, the inability of the United Nations and the United States to suppress bloody local conflicts, and the increasing assertiveness of a rising China. In the five years after the Berlin wall came down, the word «genocide» was heard far more often than in any five years of the Cold War.

The one harmonious world paradigm is clearly far too divorced from reality to be a useful guide to the post–Cold War world. Two Worlds: Us and Them. While one-world expectations appear at the end of major conflicts, the tendency to think in terms of two worlds recurs throughout human history. People are always tempted to divide people into us and them, the in-group and the other, our civilization and those barbarians.^[54]

Despite the criticisms of the new world order concept, ranging from its practical unworkability to its theoretical incoherence, Bill Clinton not only signed on to the idea of the «new world order», but dramatically expanded the concept beyond Bush’s formulation. The essence of Clinton’s election year critique was that Bush had done too little, not too much.^[55]

American intellectual Noam Chomsky, author of the 1994 book World Orders Old and New, often describes the «new world order» as a post-Cold-War era in which «the New World gives the orders». Commenting on the 1999 U.S.-NATO bombing of Serbia, he writes:

The aim of these assaults is to establish the role of the major imperialist powers—above all, the United States—as the unchallengeable arbiters of world affairs. The «New World Order» is precisely this: an international regime of unrelenting pressure and intimidation by the most powerful capitalist states against the weakest.^[56]

Following the rise of Boris Yeltsin eclipsing Gorbachev and the election victory of Clinton over Bush, the term «new world order» fell from common usage. It was replaced by competing similar concepts about how the post-Cold War order would develop. Prominent among these were the ideas of the «era of globalization», the «unipolar moment», the «end of history» and the «Clash of Civilizations».^[57]

Viewed in retrospect[edit]

A 2001 paper in Presidential Studies Quarterly examined the idea of the «new world order» as it was presented by the Bush administration (mostly ignoring previous uses by Gorbachev). Their conclusion was that Bush really only ever had three firm aspects to the new world order:

1. Checking the offensive use of force.
2. Promoting collective security.
3. Using great power cooperation.

These were not developed into a policy architecture, but came about incrementally as a function of domestic, personal and global factors. Because of the somewhat overblown expectations for the new world order in the media, Bush was widely criticized for lacking vision.^[58]

The Gulf crisis is seen as the catalyst for Bush’s development and implementation of the new world order concept. The authors note that before the crisis the concept remained «ambiguous, nascent, and unproven» and that the U.S had not assumed a leadership role with respect to the new order. Essentially, the Cold War’s end was the permissive cause for the new world order, but the Persian Gulf crisis was the active cause.^[58]

They reveal that in August 1990 U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Charles W. Freeman Jr. sent a diplomatic cable to Washington from Saudi Arabia in which he argued that U.S. conduct in the Persian Gulf crisis would determine the nature of the world. Bush would then refer to the «new world order» at least 42 times from the summer of 1990 to the end of March 1991. They also note that Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney gave three priorities to the Senate on fighting the Persian Gulf War, namely prevent further aggression, protect oil supplies and further a new world order. The authors note that the new world order did not emerge in policy speeches until after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, maintaining that the concept was clearly not critical in the U.S. decision to deploy. John H. Sununu later indicated that the administration wanted to refrain from talking about the concept until Soviet collapse was more clear. A reversal of Soviet collapse would have been the death knell for the new order.^[58]

Bush and Scowcroft were frustrated by the exaggerated and distorted ideas surrounding the new world order. They did not intend to suggest that the U.S. would yield significant influence to the United Nations, or that they expected the world to enter an era of peace and tranquility. They preferred multilateralism, but did not reject unilateralism. The new world order did not signal peace, but a «challenge to keep the dangers of disorder at bay».^[58]

Bush’s drive toward the Persian Gulf War was based on the world making a clear choice. Baker recalls that UNSCR 660’s «language was simply and crystal clear, purposely designed by us to frame the vote as being for or against aggression». Bush’s motivation centered around 1. The dangers of appeasement; and 2. Failure to check aggression could spark further aggression. Bush repeatedly invoked images of World War II in this connection and became very emotional over Iraqi atrocities being committed in Kuwait. He also believed that failure to check Iraqi aggression would lead to more challenges to the U.S.-favored status quo and global stability. While the end of the Cold War increased U.S. security globally, it remained vulnerable to regional threats. Furthermore, Washington believed that addressing the Iraqi threat would help reassert U.S. predominance in light of growing concerns about relative decline, following the resurgence of Germany and Japan.^[58]

The Gulf War was also framed as a test case for United Nations credibility. As a model for dealing with aggressors, Scowcroft believed that the United States ought to act in a way that others can trust and thus get United Nations support. It was critical that the U.S. not look like it was throwing its weight around. Great power cooperation and United Nations support would collapse if the U.S. marched on the Baghdad to try to remake Iraq. However, practically, superpower cooperation was limited. For example, when the U.S. deployed troops to Saudi Arabia, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze became furious at not being consulted.^[58]

By 1992, the authors note that the U.S. was already abandoning the idea of collective action. The leaked draft of the Wolfowitz-Libby 1992 Defense Guidance Report effectively confirmed this shift as it called for a unilateral role for the U.S. in world affairs, focusing on preserving American dominance.^[58]

In closing A World Transformed, Scowcroft sums up what his expectations were for the new world order. He states that the U.S. has the strength and the resources to pursue its own interests, but has a disproportionate responsibility to use its power in pursuit of the common good as well as an obligation to lead and to be involved. The U.S. is perceived as uncomfortable in exercising its power and ought to work to create predictability and stability in international relations. The U.S. needs not be embroiled in every conflict, but ought to aid in developing multilateral responses to them. The U.S. can unilaterally broker disputes, but ought to act whenever possible in concert with equally committed partners to deter major aggression.^[59]

Recent political usage[edit]

Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger stated in 1994: «The New World Order cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change its perceptions».^[60] Then on January 5, 2009, when asked on television by CNBC anchors about what he suggests U.S. President Barack Obama focus on during the current Israeli crises he replied that it is a time to reevaluate American foreign policy and that «he can give new impetus to American foreign policy. … I think that his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period, when really a ‘new world order’ can be created. It’s a great opportunity. It isn’t such a crisis».

Former United Kingdom Prime Minister and British Middle East envoy Tony Blair stated on November 13, 2000, in his Mansion House speech: «There is a new world order like it or not».^[61] He used the term in 2001,^[62] November 12, 2001^[63] and 2002.^[64] On January 7, 2003, he stated that «the call was for a new world order. But a new order presumes a new consensus. It presumes a shared agenda and a global partnership to do it».^[65]

Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown (then Chancellor of the Exchequer) stated on December 17, 2001: «This is not the first time the world has faced this question – so fundamental and far-reaching. In the 1940s, after the greatest of wars, visionaries in America and elsewhere looked ahead to a new world and – in their day and for their times – built a new world order».^[66]

Brown also called for a «new world order» in a 2008 speech in New Delhi to reflect the rise of Asia and growing concerns over global warming and finance. Brown said the new world order should incorporate a better representation of «the biggest shift in the balance of economic power in the world in two centuries». He went on to say: «To succeed now, the post-war rules of the game and the post-war international institutions – fit for the Cold War and a world of just 50 states – must be radically reformed to fit our world of globalisation».^[67] He also called for the revamping of post-war global institutions including the World Bank, G8 and International Monetary Fund. Other elements of Brown’s formulation include spending £100 million a year on setting up a rapid reaction force to intervene in failed states.^[68][69]

He also used the term on January 14, 2007,^[70] March 12, 2007,^[71] May 15, 2007,^[72] June 20, 2007,^[73] April 15, 2008^[74] and on April 18, 2008.^[75] Brown also used the term in his speech at the G20 Summit in London on April 2, 2009.^[76]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for a «new world order» based on new ideas, saying the era of tyranny has come to a dead-end. In an exclusive interview with Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), Ahmadinejad noted that it is time to propose new ideologies for running the world.^{[citation needed]}

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said «it’s time to move from words to action because this is not going to go away. This nation is fighting for its survival, but we are also fighting for world peace and we are also fighting for a Future World Order».^[77]

Turkish President Abdullah Gül said: «I don’t think you can control all the world from one centre, There are big nations. There are huge populations. There is unbelievable economic development in some parts of the world. So what we have to do is, instead of unilateral actions, act all together, make common decisions and have consultations with the world. A new world order, if I can say it, should emerge».^[78]

On the Colbert Report, guest John King (of CNN) mentioned Obama’s «New World Order» after Stephen Colbert joked about the media’s role in getting Obama elected.^[79]

Some scholars of international relations have advanced the thesis that the declining global influence of the U.S. and the rise of largely illiberal powers such as China threaten the established norms and beliefs of the liberal rule-based world order. They describe three pillars of the prevailing order that are upheld and promoted by the West, namely peaceful international relations (the Westphalian norm), democratic ideals and free-market capitalism. Stewart Patrick suggests that emerging powers, China included, «often oppose the political and economic ground rules of the inherited Western liberal order»^[80] and Elizabeth Economy argues that China is becoming a «revolutionary power» that is seeking «to remake global norms and institutions».^[81]

Russian political analyst Leonid Grinin believes that despite all the problems, the U.S. will preserve the leading position within a new world order since no other country is able to concentrate so many leader’s functions. Yet, he insists that the formation of a new world order will start from an epoch of new coalitions.^[82]

Xi Jinping, China’s paramount leader, has called for a new world order, in his speech to the Boao Forum for Asia, in April 2021. He criticized US global leadership and its interference on other countries’ internal affairs. «The rules set by one or several countries should not be imposed on others, and the unilateralism of individual countries should not give the whole world a rhythm» he said.^[83]

U.S. President Joe Biden said during a gathering of business leaders at the White House in March 2022 that the recent changes in global affairs caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine provided an opportunity for a new world order with U.S. leadership, stating that this project would have to be carried out in partnership with «the rest of the free world.»^[84]

According to Tony Blair’s the annual Ditchley lecture in July 2022, China, not Russia, will bring about the largest geopolitical change of this century. The era of western political and economic domination is coming to an end. The future of the world will be at the very least bipolar and possibly multipolar. The east and west can now coexist on equal level for the first time in contemporary history.^[85]

The role of soft power must not be overlooked by the west, according to Blair, as China and other nations like Russia, Turkey, and Iran invest money in the developing world while forging close political and military ties.^[85]

See also[edit]

• Anti-globalization movement
• Criticisms of globalization
• Global policeman
• Globalization
• Liberal international order
• New Order (Nazism)
• New world order (Baháʼí)
• New World Order (conspiracy theory)
• Novus ordo seclorum
• Old Order (disambiguation)
• Project for the New American Century
• Technological utopianism
• World Federalist Movement
• World government
• World Orders Old and New

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

External links[edit]

For a thorough analysis of the history of the New World Order, see: New World Order (History)

File:Novus Ordo Seclorum.png

The term «New World Order«, or «NWO«, refers to the ambiguous emergence of a bureaucratic totalitarian one-world government.

Conspiracy[]

The conspiracy of the NWO is to replace sovereign nation-states and put an end to international power struggles. Significant occurrences in politics and finance are speculated to be orchestrated by an extremely influential cabal operating through many front organizations. Numerous historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to achieve world domination through secret political gatherings and decision-making processes.

A primary method believed to accomplish a «new world order» is through the non-binding action plan of «Agenda 21«, where a national emergency could be used to indirectly push the political agenda to ban civilian use of weapons.

End Time[]

For over 2,000 years, apocalyptic millenarian Christian theologians and laymen have feared a globalist conspiracy as the fulfillment of prophecies about the «end time» in the Bible, specifically in the Book of Ezekiel, the Book of Daniel, the Olivet discourse found in the Synoptic Gospels, and the Book of Revelation. They assert that human and demonic agents of the Devil are involved in a primordial plot to deceive humanity into accepting a satanic world theocracy that has the Unholy Trinity — Satan, the Antichrist and the False Prophet — at the core of an imperial cult. In many contemporary Christian conspiracy theories, the False Prophet will either be the last pope of the Catholic Church (groomed and installed by an Alta Vendita or Jesuit conspiracy) or a guru from the New Age movement or even the leader of a fundamentalist Christian organization like The Fellowship, while the Antichrist will either be the president of the European Union or the secretary-general of the United Nations or even a virtual actor serving as the figurehead for a supercomputer.

Some of the most vocal critics of end-time conspiracy theories come from within Christianity. In 1993, American historian Bruce Barron wrote a stern rebuke of apocalyptic Christian conspiracism in the Christian Research Journal, when reviewing American televangelist Pat Robertson’s 1991 book The New World Order. Another critique can be found in American historian Gregory S. Camp’s 1997 book Selling Fear: Conspiracy Theories and End-Times Paranoia, which has been described as «impressive both as a historical and theological work». Camp warns of the «very real danger that Christians could pick up some extra spiritual baggage» by credulously embracing conspiracy theories. Progressive Christians, such as American preacher-theologian Peter J. Gomes, argue that the Bible must be read carefully to avoid misusing the text to legitimize reactionary prejudices in the dominant culture. They caution conservative Christians that a «spirit of fear» can distort scripture and history by dangerously combining biblical literalism, apocalyptic timetables, demonization, and oppressive prejudices, such as sexism, homophobia, classism, xenophobia, racism, and antisemitism. They therefore call on Christians to repent for indulging in conspiracism.

More broadly, preterist Christians argue that some or all of the biblical prophecies concerning the end time refer literally or metaphorically to events which already happened in the first century after Jesus’ birth. In their view, the «end time» concept refers to the end of the covenant between God and Israel, rather than the end of time, or the end of planet Earth. They argue that prophecies about the Rapture, the defiling of the Temple, the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrist, the Number of the Beast, the Tribulation, the Second Coming, the Last Judgment, and the resurrection of the dead were fulfilled at or about the year 70 when the Roman general (and future Emperor) Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple in Jerusalem, putting a permanent stop to the daily animal sacrifices. According to Preterists, many passages in the New Testament indicate with apparent certainty that the second coming of Christ, and the end time predicted in the Bible were to take place within the lifetimes of Jesus’ disciples rather than millennia later: Matt. 10:23, Matt. 16:28, Matt. 24:34, Matt. 26:64, Rom. 13:11-12, 1 Cor. 7:29-31, 1 Cor. 10:11, Phil. 4:5, James 5:8-9, 1 Pet. 4:7, 1 Jn. 2:18. Ultimately, full Preterists argue that all Christians should reject apocalyptic eschatology and embrace realized eschatology.

Freemasonry[]

Anti-Masonic conspiracy theorists believe that «high-ranking» Freemasons are involved in conspiracies to create an occult New World Order. They claim that some of the Founding Fathers of the United States, such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, had Masonic symbolism interwoven into American society, particularly in the Great Seal of the United States, the United States one-dollar bill, the architecture of National Mall landmarks, and the streets and highways of Washington, D.C.. They speculate that Freemasons did this in order to bind their planning of a government in conformity with the luciferian plan of the Great Architect of the Universe whom, they are said to believe, has tasked the United States with the eventual establishment of an hermetic «Kingdom of God on Earth» and the building of the Third Temple in New Jerusalem as its holiest site.
Freemasons rebut these claims of Masonic conspiracy. They assert that Freemasonry, which promotes a balance between rationalism and mysticism through an initiatory system of degrees and sacred geometry, places no power in occult symbols themselves. It is not a part of Freemasonry to view the drawing of symbols, no matter how large, as an act of consolidating or controlling power. Furthermore, there is no published information establishing the Masonic membership of the men responsible for the design of the Great Seal or the street plan of Washington, D.C. The Latin phrase «novus ordo seclorum«, appearing on the reverse side of the Great Seal since 1782 and on the back of the one-dollar bill since 1935, means «New Order of the Ages» and only alludes to the beginning of an era where the United States is an independent nation-state, but is often improperly translated by conspiracy theorists as «New World Order» or «New Secular Order». Lastly, Freemasons argue that, despite the symbolic importance of the Temple of Solomon in their mythology, they have no interest in rebuilding it, especially since «it is obvious that any attempt to interfere with the present condition of things [on the Temple Mount] would in all probability bring about the greatest religious war the world has ever known».

More broadly, Freemasons assert that a long-standing rule within regular Freemasonry is a prohibition on the discussion of politics in a Masonic Lodge and the participation of lodges or Masonic bodies in political pursuits. Freemasonry has no politics, but it teaches its members to be of high moral character and active citizens. The accusation that Freemasonry has a hidden agenda to establish a Masonic government ignores several facts. While agreeing on certain Masonic Landmarks, the many independent and sovereign Grand Lodges act as such, and do not agree on many other points of belief and practice.

Also, as can be seen from a survey of famous Freemasons, individual Freemasons hold beliefs that span the spectrum of politics. The term «Masonic government» has no meaning since individual Freemasons hold many different opinions on what constitutes a good government, and Freemasonry as a body has no opinion on the topic. Ultimately, Freemasons argue that even if it were proven that influential individuals have used and are using Masonic Lodges to engage in crypto-politics, such as was the case with the illegal Italian Lodge Propaganda Due, this would represent a cooptation of Freemasonry rather than evidence of its hidden agenda.

Illuminati[]

The Order of the Illuminati was an Enlightenment-age secret society founded on 1 May 1776, in Ingolstadt (Upper Bavaria), by Adam Weishaupt, who was the first lay professor of canon law at the University of Ingolstadt. The movement consisted of freethinkers, secularists, liberals, republicans and pro-feminists, recruited in the Masonic Lodges of Germany, who sought to promote perfectionism through mystery schools. In 1785, the order was infiltrated, broken and suppressed by the government agents of Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria, in his campaign to neutralize the threat of secret societies ever becoming hotbeds of conspiracies to overthrow the monarchy and state religion.

In the late 18th century, reactionary conspiracy theorists, such as Scottish physicist John Robison and French Jesuit priest Augustin Barruel, began speculating that the Illuminati survived their suppression and became the masterminds behind the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. The Illuminati were accused of being enlightened absolutists who were attempting to secretly orchestrate a world revolution in order to globalize the most radical ideals of the Enlightenment: anti-clericalism, anti-monarchism, and anti-patriarchalism. During the 19th century, fear of an Illuminati conspiracy was a real concern of European ruling classes, and their oppressive reactions to this unfounded fear provoked in 1848 the very revolutions they sought to prevent.

During the interwar period of the 20th century, fascist propagandists, such as British revisionist historian Nesta Helen Webster and American socialite Edith Starr Miller, not only popularized the myth of an Illuminati conspiracy but claimed that it was a subversive secret society which serves the Jewish elites that supposedly propped up both finance capitalism and Soviet communism in order to divide and rule the world. American evangelist Gerald Burton Winrod and other conspiracy theorists within the fundamentalist Christian movement in the United States, which emerged in the 1910s as a backlash against the principles of the Enlightenment, modernism, and liberalism, became the main channel of dissemination of Illuminati conspiracy theories in America. Right-wing populists subsequently began speculating that some collegiate fraternities, gentlemen’s clubs and think tanks of the American upper class are front organizations of the Illuminati, which they accuse of plotting to create a New World Order through a one-world government.

Skeptics argue that evidence would suggest that the Bavarian Illuminati was nothing more than a curious historical footnote since there is no evidence that any Illuminati survived its founders.

Protocols of the Elders of Zion[]

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an antisemitic canard, originally published in Russian in 1903, alleging a Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy to achieve world domination. The text purports to be the minutes of the secret meetings of a cabal of Jewish masterminds, which has coopted Freemasonry and is plotting to rule the world on behalf of all Jews because they believe themselves to be the chosen people of God.^[38] The Protocols incorporate many of the core conspiracist themes outlined in the Robison and Barruel attacks on the Freemasons, and overlay them with false antisemitic allegations about anti-Tsarist movements in Russia. The Protocols reflect themes similar to more general critiques of Enlightenment liberalism by conservatives who support monarchies and state religions. The interpretation intended by the publication of The Protocols is that if one peels away the layers of the Masonic conspiracy, past the Illuminati, one finds the rotten Jewish core.

The Protocols has been proven by polemicists, such as Irish journalist Philip Graves in a 1921 The Times article, and British academic Norman Cohn in his 1967 book Warrant for Genocide, to be both a hoax and a clear case of plagiarism. There is general agreement that Russian-French writer and political activist Matvei Golovinski fabricated the text for Okhrana, the secret police of the Russian Empire, as a work of counter-revolutionary propaganda prior to the 1905 Russian Revolution, by plagiarizing it, almost word for word in some passages, from The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, a 19th century satire against Napoleon III of France written by French political satirist and Legitimist militant Maurice Joly.

Responsible for feeding many antisemitic and anti-Masonic hysterias of the 20th century, The Protocols is widely considered to be influential in the development of conspiracy theories related to a New World Order (such as the notion of a Zionist Occupation Government), and reappears repeatedly in contemporary conspiracy literature. For example, the authors of the 1982 controversial book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail concluded that The Protocols was the most persuasive piece of evidence for the existence and activities of the Priory of Sion. They speculated that this secret society was working behind the scenes to establish a theocratic «United States of Europe». Politically and religiously unified through the imperial cult of a Merovingian sacred king, supposedly descended from a Jesus bloodline, who occupies both the throne of Europe and the Holy See, this «Holy European Empire» would become the hyperpower of the 21st century. Although the Priory of Sion, itself, has been exhaustively debunked by journalists and scholars as a hoax, fringe Christian eschatologists concerned with the emergence of a New World Order became convinced that the Priory of Sion was a fulfillment of prophecies found in the Book of Revelation and further proof of an anti-Christian conspiracy of epic proportions.

Skeptics argue that the current gambit of contemporary conspiracy theorists who use the The Protocols is to claim that they «really» come from some group other than the Jews such as the Illuminati or alien invaders. Although it is hard to determine whether the conspiracy-minded actually believe this or are simply trying to sanitize a discredited text, skeptics argue that it doesn’t make much difference, since they leave the actual, antisemitic text unchanged. The result is to give The Protocols credibility and circulation when it deserves neither.

NWO characteristics[]

• Totalitarianism
• Population Control
• Mass and global surveillance
• Round Tables (Eg. Bilderberg)
• Smart Technology and Cities
• Unarmed Citizens (Eg. Cannot fight tyranny):
• Occupation or Marshal Law
• Destabilization; or overthrowing foreign Governments (Eg. Lybia, Egypt…)
• Media Outlets (Eg: Operation Mockingbird)
• Social Media (Eg: Operation Earnest Voice)
• Big Brother
• Marxist Academia

• Decentralized digital currency (Eg: Bitcoin)
• Right-Wing Political entities
• Individual Awareness and knowledge
• Nationalism
• Democracy
• Borders

Round Table[]

British businessman Cecil Rhodes advocated the British Empire reannexing the United States of America and reforming itself into an «Imperial Federation» to bring about a hyperpower and lasting world peace. In his first will, of 1877, written at the age of 23, he expressed his wish to fund a secret society (known as the Society of the Elect) that would advance this goal:
To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity.
In his later wills, a more mature Rhodes abandoned the idea and instead concentrated on what became the Rhodes Scholarship, which had British statesman Alfred Milner as one of its trustees. Established in 1902, the original goal of the trust fund was to foster peace among the great powers by creating a sense of fraternity and a shared world view among future British, American, and German leaders by having enabled them to study for free at the University of Oxford.

Milner and British official Lionel George Curtis were the architects of the Round Table movement, a network of organizations promoting closer union between Britain and its self-governing colonies. To this end, Curtis founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs in June 1919 and, with his 1938 book The Commonwealth of God, began advocating for the creation of an imperial federation that eventually reannexes the U.S., which would be presented to Protestant churches as being the work of the Christian God to elicit their support. The Commonwealth of Nations was created in 1949 but it would only be a free association of independent states rather than the powerful imperial federation imagined by Rhodes, Milner and Curtis.

The Council on Foreign Relations began in 1917 with a group of New York academics who were asked by President Woodrow Wilson to offer options for the foreign policy of the United States in the interwar period. Originally envisioned as a British-American group of scholars and diplomats, some of whom belonging to the Round Table movement, it was a subsequent group of 108 New York financiers, manufacturers and international lawyers organized in June 1918 by Nobel Peace Prize recipient and U.S. secretary of state, Elihu Root, that became the Council on Foreign Relations on 29 July 1921. The first of the council’s projects was a quarterly journal launched in September 1922, called Foreign Affairs.

Conspiracy theorists believe that the Council on Foreign Relations is a front organization for the Round Table as a tool of the «Anglo-American Establishment», which they believe has been plotting from 1900 on to rule the world. The research findings of historian Carroll Quigley, author of the 1966 book Tragedy and Hope, are taken by both conspiracy theorists of the American Old Right (Cleon Skousen) and New Left (Carl Oglesby) to substantiate this view, even though he argued that the Establishment is not involved in a plot to implement a one-world government but rather British and American benevolent imperialism driven by the mutual interests of economic elites in the United Kingdom and the United States. Quigley also argued that, although the Round Table still exists today, its position in influencing the policies of world leaders has been much reduced from its heyday during World War I and slowly waned after the end of World War II and the Suez Crisis. Today it is largely a ginger group, designed to consider and gradually influence the policies of the Commonwealth of Nations, but faces strong opposition. Furthermore, in American society after 1965, the problem, according to Quigley, was that no elite was in charge and acting responsibly.

American banker David Rockefeller joined the Council on Foreign Relations as its youngest-ever director in 1949 and subsequently became chairman of the board from 1970 to 1985; today he serves as honorary chairman. In 2002, Rockefeller authored his autobiography Memoirs wherein, on page 405, he wrote:
For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents … to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we 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.
Barkun argues that this statement is partly facetious (the claim of «conspiracy» or «treason») and partly serious – the desire to encourage trilateral cooperation among the U.S., Europe, and Japan, for example – an ideal that used to be a hallmark of the internationalist wing of the Republican Party when there was an internationalist wing.

However, the statement is taken at face value and widely cited by conspiracy theorists as proof that the Council on Foreign Relations (itself alleged to be a front for an «international banking cabal», as well as, it is claimed, the sponsor of many «globalist» think tanks such as the Trilateral Commission) uses its role as the brain trust of American presidents, senators and representatives to manipulate them into supporting a New World Order. Conspiracy theorists fear that the international bankers of financial capitalism are planning to eventually subvert the independence of the U.S. by subordinating national sovereignty to a strengthened Bank for International Settlements with the intent to “create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole”.^[48]

In a 13 November 2007 interview with Canadian journalist Benjamin Fulford, Rockefeller countered:
I don’t think that I really feel that we need a world government. We need governments of the world that work together and collaborate. But, I can’t imagine that there would be any likelihood or even that it would be desirable to have a single government elected by the people of the world … There have been people, ever since I’ve had any kind of position in the world, who have accused me of being ruler of the world. I have to say that I think for the large part, I would have to decide to describe them as crackpots. It makes no sense whatsoever, and isn’t true, and won’t be true, and to raise it as a serious issue seems to me to be irresponsible.
Some American social critics, such as Laurence H. Shoup, argue that the Council on Foreign Relations is an «imperial brain trust», which has, for decades, played a central behind-the-scenes role in shaping U.S. foreign policy choices for the post-WWII international order and the Cold War, by determining what options show up on the agenda and what options do not even make it to the table; while others, such as G. William Domhoff, argue that it is in fact a mere policy discussion forum, which provides the business input to U.S. foreign policy planning. The latter argue that it has nearly 3,000 members, far too many for secret plans to be kept within the group; all the council does is sponsor discussion groups, debates and speakers; and as far as being secretive, it issues annual reports and allows access to its historical archives. However, all these critics agree that historical studies of the council show that it has a very different role in the overall power structure than what is claimed by conspiracy theorists.^[48]

Open Conspiracy[]

In his 1928 book The Open Conspiracy British writer and Fabian socialist H. G. Wells called for the intelligentsia of all nation-states to organize for the establishment of a global federation of strengthened and democratized global institutions, with plenary constitutional power accountable to global citizens and a division of international authority among separate global agencies, in order to build a world social democracy.

Wells warned, however, in his 1940 book The New World Order that:
… when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we [must] bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.
Wells’ book was extremely influential in giving a second meaning to the term «new world order», which would only be used by both democratic socialist supporters and anti-communist opponents for generations to come.^[53] But the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 led to a period of triumphalism by capitalists world wide, the elimination of the only obstacle to the spread of a neoliberal form of globalization, and a shattering of the confidence of those who hoped that Perestroika and Glasnost reforms of the late 1980s would return the Soviet Union (which had become a degenerated workers’ state) to democratic socialism and transform it into one of the building blocks of the new world order envisioned by Wells. Right-wing conspiracy theorists, however, simply changed their focus from the Soviet Union to the United Nations as the bureaucratic collectivist menace.

New Age[]

British neo-Theosophical occultist Alice Bailey, one of the founders of the so-called New Age movement, prophesied in 1940 the eventual victory of the Allies of World War II over the Axis powers (which occurred in 1945) and the establishment by the Allies of a political and religious New World Order. She saw a federal world government as the culmination of Wells’ Open Conspiracy but argued that it would be synarchist because it was guided by ascended masters, intent on preparing humanity for the mystical second coming of Christ, and the dawn of the Age of Aquarius. According to Bailey, a group of ascended masters called the Great White Brotherhood works on the «inner planes» to oversee the transition to the New World Order but, for now, the members of this Spiritual Hierarchy are only known to a few occult scientists, with whom they communicate telepathically, but as the need for their personal involvement in the plan increases, there will be an «Externalization of the Hierarchy» and everyone will know of their presence on Earth.^[54]

In 1997, Hasidic rabbi Yonassan Gershom, in an article titled Anti-Semitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey’s Writings, pointed out that Bailey’s Plan for the New World Order, marked by extravagant fantasy, called for «the gradual dissolution — again if in any way possible — of the Orthodox Jewish faith,» which, he said, indicated that «her goal is nothing less than the destruction of Judaism itself.» This fact is notable since many conspiracy theories tend to portray Jews as the plotters behind the New World Order rather than one of the groups the plotters want to repress in order to create it.

Bailey’s writings, along with American writer Marilyn Ferguson’s 1980 book The Aquarian Conspiracy, contributed to conspiracy theorists of the Christian right viewing the New Age movement as the «false religion» that would supersede Christianity in a New World Order. Skeptics argue that the term «New Age movement» is a misnomer, generally used by conspiracy theorists as a catch-all rubric for any new religious, spiritual or philosophical belief, symbol and practice that is not fundamentalist Christian. By their lights, anything that is not Christian is by definition actively and willfully anti-Christian. The implication is that these independent and sometimes contradictory schools of thought are all part of a monolithic whole. This is logically and empirically false, and rationally simplistic.

Paradoxically, since the 2000s, New World Order conspiracism is increasing being embraced and propagandized by New Age occultists, who are people bored by rationalism and drawn to what Barkun calls the «cultural dumping ground of the heretical, the scandalous, the unfashionable, and the dangerous» — such as alternative medicine, astrology, quantum mysticism, spiritualism, and Theosophy. Thus, New Age conspiracy theorists, such as the makers of documentary films like Zeitgeist, the Movie and Esoteric Agenda, claim that globalists who plot on behalf of the New World Order are simply misusing occultism for Machiavellian ends, such as adopting 21 December 2012 as the exact date for the establishment of the New World Order in order to take advantage of the growing 2012 phenomenon, which has its origins in the fringe Mayanist theories of New Age writers José Argüelles, Terence McKenna, and Daniel Pinchbeck.

Skeptics argue that the connection of conspiracy theorists and occultists follows from their common, fallacious premises. First, any widely accepted belief must necessarily be false. Second, counterknowledge — what the Establishment spurns — must be true. The result is a large, self-referential network in which, for example, UFO religionists promote anti-Jewish phobias while antisemites claim direct reception of prophetic material: the voice of the Mesoamerican deity Quetzalcoatl.

Fourth Reich[]

Conspiracy theorists often use the term «Fourth Reich» simply as a pejorative synonym for the «New World Order» to imply that its state ideology and government will be similar to Germany’s Third Reich or that globalists who plot on behalf of the New World Order are Jewish fascists. However, some conspiracy theorists take the research findings of American journalist Edwin Black, author of the 2009 book Nazi Nexus, to claim that some American corporations and philanthropic foundations — whose complicity was pivotal to the Third Reich’s war effort, Nazi eugenics and the Holocaust — are now conspiring to build a Fourth Reich.

Furthermore, conspiracy theorists, such as American writer Jim Marrs, claim that some ex-Nazis, who survived the fall of the Greater German Empire, along with sympathizers in the United States and elsewhere, given safe haven by organizations like ODESSA and Die Spinne, have been working behind the scenes since the end of World War II to enact at least some of the principles of Nazism (e.g. militarism, imperialism, widespread spying on citizens, use of corporations and propaganda to control national interests and ideas) into culture, government, and business worldwide, but primarily in the U.S.. They cite the influence of ex-Nazi scientists brought in under Operation Paperclip to help advance aerospace manufacturing in the U.S. with technological principles from Nazi UFOs, and the acquisition and creation of conglomerates by ex-Nazis and their sympathizers after the war, in both Europe and the U.S..

This neo-Nazi conspiracy is said to be animated by an «Iron Dream» in which the American Empire, having overthrown its Zionist Occupation Government, gradually establishes the Fourth Reich, formally known as the «Western Imperium», a pan-Aryan world empire modeled after Adolf Hitler’s New Order and the religious aspects of Nazism, as the best hope for the survival of Western civilization under the threat of the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists therefore see history as a «war between secret societies» for control of a New World Order.

Skeptics argue that conspiracy theorists grossly overestimate the influence of ex-Nazis and neo-Nazis on American society, and point out that American imperialism, corporatocracy and political repression have a long history that predates World War II. Some political scientists, such as Sheldon Wolin, have expressed concern that the twin forces of democratic deficit and superpower status have paved the way in the U.S. for the emergence of an inverted totalitarianism which contradicts many principles of Nazism.

Aliens[]

Since the late 1970s, extraterrestrials from other habitable planets or parallel dimensions (such as «Greys«) and intraterrestrials from Hollow Earth (such as «Reptilians«) have been included in the New World Order conspiracy, in more or less dominant roles, as in the theories put forward by American writers Stan Deyo and Milton William Cooper, and British writer David Icke.

The common theme in such conspiracy theories is that aliens have been among us for decades, centuries or millennia, but a government cover-up has protected the public from knowledge of ancient astronauts and an alien invasion. Motivated by speciesism, these aliens have been and are secretly manipulating developments and changes in human society in order to more efficiently control and exploit it. In some theories, alien infiltrators have taken human form and move freely throughout human society, even to the point of taking control of command positions in governmental, corporate, and religious institutions, and are now in the final stages of their plan to take over the world. A mythical covert government agency of the United States code-named Majestic 12 is often cited by conspiracy theorists as being the shadow government which collaborates with the alien occupation, in exchange for assistance in the development and testing of military «flying saucers» at Area 51, in order for U.S. armed forces to achieve full-spectrum dominance.^[7]

Skeptics, who adhere to the psychosocial hypothesis for unidentified flying objects, argue that the convergence of New World Order conspiracy theory and UFO conspiracy theory is a product of not only the era’s widespread mistrust of governments and the popularity of the extraterrestrial hypothesis for UFOs but of the far right and ufologists actually joining forces. Barkun notes that the only positive side to this development is that, if conspirators plotting to rule the world are believed to be aliens, traditional human scapegoats (Freemasons, Illuminati, Jews, etc.) are downgraded or exonerated.

Brave New World[]

Antiscience and neo-Luddite conspiracy theorists emphasize technology forecasting in their New World Order conpiracy theories. They speculate that the global power elite are modern Luciferians pursuing a transhumanist agenda to develop and use human enhancement technologies in order to become a «posthuman ruling caste», while change accelerates toward a technological singularity — a theorized future point of discontinuity when events will accelerate at such a pace that normal unenhanced humans will be unable to predict or even understand the rapid changes occurring in the world around them. Conspiracy theorists fear the outcome will either be the emergence of a Brave New World-like dystopia — a «Brave New World Order» — or the extinction of the human species.^[62][63]

Democratic transhumanists, such as American sociologist James Hughes, and singularitarians, such as American inventor Raymond Kurzweil, counter that many influential members of the American Establishment are bioconservatives strongly opposed to human enhancement, as demonstrated by President Bush’s Council on Bioethics’s proposed international treaty prohibiting human cloning and germline engineering. Regardless, transhumanists and singularitarians claim to only support developing and making publicly available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities for the common good; as well as taking deliberate action to ensure that the Singularity — the moment when technological progress starts being driven by superintelligence — occurs in a way that is beneficial to humankind.

Postulated implementations[]

Just as there are several overlapping or conflicting theories among conspiracists about the nature of the New World Order, so are there several beliefs about how its architects and planners will implement it:

Gradualism[]

Conspiracy theorists generally speculate that the New World Order is being implemented gradually, citing the formation of the U.S. Federal Reserve System in 1913; the International Monetary Fund in 1944; the United Nations in 1945; the World Bank in 1945; the World Health Organization in 1948; the European Union and the euro currency in 1993; the World Trade Organization in 1998; and the African Union in 2002 as major milestones.

An increasingly popular conspiracy theory among American paleoconservatives is that the hypothetical North American Union and the amero currency, proposed by the Council on Foreign Relations and its counterparts in Mexico and Canada, will be the next implementation of the New World Order. The theory holds that a group of shadowy and mostly nameless international elites are planning to replace the federal government of the United States with a transnational government. Therefore, conspiracy theorists believe the borders between Mexico, Canada and the United States are in the process of being erased, covertly, by a group of globalists whose ultimate goal is to replace national governments in Washington, D.C., Ottawa and Mexico City with a European-style political union and a bloated E.U.-style bureaucracy.

Skeptics argue that the North American Union exists only as a proposal contained in one of a thousand academic and/or policy papers published each year that advocate all manner of idealistic but ultimately unrealistic approaches to social, economic and political problems. Most of these get passed around in their own circles and eventually filed away and forgotten by junior staffers in congressional offices. Some of these papers, however, become touchstones for the conspiracy-minded and form the basis of all kinds of unfounded xenophobic fears especially during times of economic anxiety.

In March 2009, as a result of the financial crisis of 2007–2010, the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation have pressed for urgent consideration of a super-sovereign reserve currency and a U.N. panel has proposed greatly expanding the I.M.F.’s Special Drawing Rights. Conspiracy theorists have misinterpreted the proposal as vindication of their beliefs about a global currency for the New World Order.^[67][68]

Judging that both national governments and global institutions have proven ineffective in addressing worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve, some political scientists, such as Mark C. Partrige, argue that regionalism will be the major force in the coming decades, pockets of power around regional centers: Western Europe around Brussels, the Western Hemisphere around Washington, D.C., East Asia around Beijing, and Eastern Europe around Moscow. As such, the E.U., the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and the G-20 will likely become more influential as time progresses. The question then is not whether global governance is gradually emerging, but rather how will these regional powers interact with one another.

Coup d’état[]

American right-wing conspiracy theorists, especially those who joined the militia movement in the United States, speculate that the New World Order will be implemented through a dramatic coup d’état by a «secret team», using black helicopters, in the U.S. and other nation-states to bring about a totalitarian world government controlled by the United Nations and enforced by troops of foreign U.N. peacekeepers. Following the Rex 84 and Operation Garden Plot plans, this military coup would involve the suspension of the Constitution, the imposition of martial law, and the appointment of military commanders to head state and local governments and to detain dissidents.

These conspiracy theorists, who are all strong believers in a right to keep and bear arms, are extremely fearful that the passing of any gun control legislation will be later followed by the abolishment of personal gun ownership and a campaign of gun confiscation, and that the refugee camps of emergency management agencies such as F.E.M.A. will be used for the internment of suspected subversives, making little effort to distinguish true threats to the New World Order from pacifist dissidents.

Before year 2000 some survivalists wrongly believed this process would be set in motion by the predicted Y2K problem causing societal collapse. Since many left-wing and right-wing conspiracy theorists believe that the September 11 attacks were a false flag operation carried out by the United States intelligence community, as part of a strategy of tension to justify political repression at home and preemptive war abroad, they have become convinced that a more catastrophic terrorist incident will be responsible for triggering Executive Directive 51 in order to complete the transition to a police state.

Skeptics argue that unfounded fears about an imminent or eventual gun ban, military coup, internment, or U.N. invasion and occupation are rooted in an extremist form of constitutionalism but also an apocalyptic millenarianism which provides a basic narrative within the American political right, claiming that the idealized society (i.e. «Christian nation», constitutional republic of «sovereign citizens») is thwarted by subversive conspiracies of liberal secular humanists who want «Big Government» and globalists who plot on behalf of the New World Order.

Mass surveillance[]

Conspiracy theorists concerned with surveillance abuse believe that the New World Order is being implemented by the cult of intelligence at the core of the surveillance-industrial complex through mass surveillance and the use of Social Security numbers, the bar-coding of retail goods with Universal Product Code markings, and, most recently, RFID tagging via microchip implants.
Skeptics warn that some consumer privacy advocates, such as Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre, who claim that corporations and government are planning to track every move of consumers and citizens with RFID as the latest step toward a 1984-like surveillance state, have become Christian conspiracy theorists who believe spychips must be resisted because they argue that modern database and communications technologies, coupled with point of sale data-capture equipment and sophisticated ID and authentication systems, now make it possible to require a biometrically associated number or mark to make purchases. They fear that the ability to implement such a system closely resembles the Number of the Beast prophesied in the Book of Revelation.

In January 2002, the Information Awareness Office (IAO) was established by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to bring together several DARPA projects focused on applying information technology to counter asymmetric threats to national security. Following public criticism that the development and deployment of these technologies could potentially lead to a mass surveillance system, the IAO was defunded by the United States Congress in 2003. The second source of controversy involved IAO’s original logo, which depicted the «all-seeing» Eye of Providence atop of a pyramid looking down over the globe, accompanied by the Latin phrase scientia est potentia (knowledge is power). Although DARPA eventually removed the logo from its website, it left a lasting impression on privacy advocates. It also inflamed conspiracy theorists, who misinterpret the «eye and pyramid» as the Masonic symbol of the Illuminati, an 18th-century secret society they speculate continues to exist and is plotting on behalf of a New World Order.

American historian Richard Landes, who specializes in the history of apocalypticism and was co-founder and director of the Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University, argues that new and emerging technologies often trigger alarmism among millenarians and even the introduction of Gutenberg’s printing press in 1436 caused waves of apocalyptic thinking. The Y2K problem, bar codes and Social Security numbers all triggered end-time warnings which either proved to be false or simply were no longer taken seriously once the public became accustomed to these technologies. Civil libertarians argue that the privatization of surveillance and the rise of the surveillance-industrial complex in the United States does raise legitimate concerns about the erosion of privacy. However, skeptics of mass surveillance conspiracism caution that such concerns should be disentagled from secular paranoia about Big Brother or religious hysteria about the Antichrist.

Occultism[]

Conspiracy theorists of the Christian right believe there is an ancient occult conspiracy — started by the first mystagogues of Gnosticism and perpetuated by their alleged esoteric successors, such as the Kabbalists, Cathars, Knights Templar, Rosicrucians, Freemasons, and, ultimately, the Illuminati — which seeks to subvert the Judeo-Christian foundations of the Western world and implement the New World Order through a New Age one-world religion that prepares the masses to embrace the imperial cult of the Antichrist. More broadly, they speculate that globalists who plot on behalf of a New World Order are directed by occult agencies of some sort: unknown superiors, spiritual hierarchies, demons, fallen angels or Lucifer. They believe that, like Nazi occultists, these conspirators use the power of occult sciences (numerology), symbols (Eye of Providence), rituals (Masonic degrees), monuments (National Mall landmarks), buildings (Manitoba Legislative Building^[33]) and facilities (Denver International Airport) to advance their plot to rule the world.

For example, in June 1979, an unknown benefactor under the pseudonym «R.C. Christian» had a huge granite megalith built in the U.S. state of Georgia, which acts like a compass, calendar, and clock. A message comprising ten guides is inscribed on the occult structure in many languages to serve as instructions for survivors of a doomsday event to establish a more enlightened and sustainable civilization than the one which was destroyed. The «Georgia Guidestones» have subsequently become a spiritual and political Rorschach test onto which any number of ideas can be imposed. Some New Agers and neo-pagans revere it as a ley-line power nexus while a few conspiracy theorists are convinced that they are engraved with the New World Order’s anti-Christian «Ten Commandments». Should the Guidestones survive for centuries as their creators intended, many more meanings could arise, equally unrelated to the designer’s original intention.

Skeptics argue that the demonization of Western occultism by conspiracy theorists is rooted in religious intolerance but also in the same moral panics that have fueled witch trials in Early Modern Europe, and satanic ritual abuse allegations in the United States.

Population control[]

Conspiracy theorists believe that the New World Order will also be implemented through the use of population control in order to more easily monitor and control the movement of individuals. The means range from stopping the growth of human societies through reproductive health and family planning programs, which promote abstinence, contraception and abortion, or intentionally reducing the bulk of the world population through genocides by mongering unnecessary wars, plagues by engineering emergent viruses and tainting vaccines, and environmental disasters by controlling the weather (HAARP,chemtrails), etc.. The Codex Alimentarius, a collection of internationally recognized standards, codes of practice, guidelines and other recommendations relating to foods, food production and food safety, has also become the subject of conspiracy theories about population control through famines and foodborne diseases.

Skeptics argue that fears of mandated population control can be traced back to the traumatic legacy of the eugenics movement’s «war against the weak» in the United States during the first decades of the 20th century but also the Second Red Scare in the U.S. during the late 1940s and 1950s, and to a lesser extent in the 1960s, when activists on the far right of American politics routinely opposed public health programs, notably water fluoridation, mass vaccination and mental health services, by asserting they were all part of a far-reaching plot to impose a socialist or communist regime. Their views were influenced by opposition to a number of major social and political changes that had happened in recent years: the growth of internationalism, particularly the United Nations and its programs; the introduction of social welfare provisions, particularly the various programs established by the New Deal; and government efforts to reduce perceived inequalities in the social structure of the U.S..

Mind control[]

Social critics accuse governments, corporations, and the mass media of being involved in the manufacturing of a national consensus and, paradoxically, a culture of fear due to the potential for increased social control that a mistrustful and mutually fearing population might offer to those in power. The worst fear of some conspiracy theorists is that the New World Order will be implemented through the use of mind control — a broad range of tactics able to subvert an individual’s control of his or her own thinking, behavior, emotions, or decisions. These tactics are said to include everything from Manchurian candidate-style brainwashing of sleeper agents (Project MKULTRA, «Project Monarch») to engineering psychological operations (water fluoridation, subliminal advertising, «Silent Sound Spread Spectrum», MEDUSA) and parapsychological operations (Stargate Project) to influence the masses. The concept of wearing a tin foil hat for protection from such threats has become a popular stereotype and term of derision; the phrase serves as a byword for paranoia and is associated with conspiracy theorists.

Skeptics argue that the paranoia behind a conspiracy theorist’s obsession with mind control, population control, occultism, surveillance abuse, Big Business, Big Government, and globalization arises from a combination of two factors, when he or she: 1) holds strong individualist values and 2) lacks power. The first attribute refers to people who care deeply about an individual’s right to make their own choices and direct their own lives without interference or obligations to a larger system (like the government). But combine this with a sense of powerlessness in one’s own life, and one gets what some psychologists call «agency panic», intense anxiety about an apparent loss of autonomy to outside forces or regulators. When fervent individualists feel that they cannot exercise their independence, they experience a crisis and assume that larger forces are to blame for usurping this freedom.

Alleged conspirators[]

According to Domhoff, many people seem to believe that the United States is ruled from behind the scenes by a conspiratorial elite with secret desires, i.e., by a small secretive group that wants to change the government system or put the country under the control of a world government. In the past the conspirators were usually said to be crypto-communist sympathizers who were intent upon bringing the United States under a common world government with the Soviet Union, but the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. in 1991 undercut that theory. Domhoff notes that most conspiracy theorists changed their focus to the United Nations as the likely controlling force in a New World Order, an idea which is undermined by the powerlessness of the U.N. and the unwillingness of even moderates within the American Establishment to give it anything but a limited role.

In the controversial 2008 book Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making, political scientist David Rothkopf argues that the world population of 6 billion people is governed by an elite of 6000 individuals. Until the late 20th century, governments of the great powers provided most of the superclass, accompanied by a few heads of international movements (i.e., the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church) and entrepreneurs (Rothschilds, Rockefellers). According to Rothkopf, in the early 21st century, economic clout — fueled by the explosive expansion of international trade, travel and communication — rules; the nation-state’s power has diminished shrinking politicians to minority power broker status; leaders in international business, finance and the defense industry not only dominate the superclass, they move freely into high positions in their nations’ governments and back to private life largely beyond the notice of elected legislatures (including the U.S. Congress), which remain abysmally ignorant of affairs beyond their borders. He asserts that the superclass’ disproportionate influence over national policy is constructive but always self-interested, and that across the world, few object to corruption and oppressive governments provided they can do business in these countries.

Conspiracy theorists go further than Rothkopf, and other scholars who have studied the global power elite, by claiming that «bloodlines» of the superclass whose members belong to the Bilderberg Group, Bohemian Grove, Club of Rome, Council on Foreign Relations, Skull and Bones, Trilateral Commission, and similar think tanks and private clubs, are synarchists conspiring to create a totalitarian New World Order — the implementation of a bureaucratic collectivist world government through a strengthened United Nations and a global central bank to force humanity into permanent slavery.

Domhoff counters:
The opponents are the corporate conservatives and the Republican Party, not the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderbergers, and Bohemians. It is the same people more or less, but it puts them in their most important roles, as capitalists and political leaders, which are visible and legitimate… If thought of this way, then the role of a CFR as a place to try to hear new ideas and reach consensus is more readily understood, as is the function of a social club as a place that creates social cohesion. Moreover, those understandings of the CFR and the clubs fit with the perceptions of the members of the elite.
Progressives, who are skeptical of conspiracy theories, also accuse the global power elite of not having the best interests of all at heart, and many intergovernmental organizations of suffering from a democratic deficit, but they argue that the superclass are plutocrats only interested in brazenly imposing a neoliberal or neoconservative new world order — the implementation of global capitalism through economic and military coercion to protect the interests of transnational corporations — which systematically undermines the possibility of a socialist one-world government. On the other hand, Marxists and anarchists, who believe the world is in the middle of a transition from the American Empire to the rule of a global ruling class that has emerged from within the American Empire, point out that right-wing conspiracy theorists, blinded by their anti-communism, fail to see is that what they demonize as the «New World Order» is, ironically, «Empire» — the highest stage of the very capitalist economic system they defend.

Criticism[]

Skeptics of New World Order conspiracy theories accuse its proponents of indulging in the furtive fallacy, a belief that significant facts of history are necessarily sinister; conspiracism, a world view that centrally places conspiracy theories in the unfolding of history, rather than social and economic forces; and fusion paranoia, a promiscuous absorption of fears from any source whatsoever.

Domhoff, a research professor in psychology and sociology who studies theories of power, writes in a March 2005 essay entitled There Are No Conspiracies:
There are several problems with a conspiratorial view that don’t fit with what we know about power structures. First, it assumes that a small handful of wealthy and highly educated people somehow develop an extreme psychological desire for power that leads them to do things that don’t fit with the roles they seem to have. For example, that rich capitalists are no longer out to make a profit, but to create a one-world government. Or that elected officials are trying to get the constitution suspended so they can assume dictatorial powers. These kinds of claims go back many decades now, and it is always said that it is really going to happen this time, but it never does. Since these claims have proved wrong dozens of times by now, it makes more sense to assume that leaders act for their usual reasons, such as profit-seeking motives and institutionalized roles as elected officials. Of course they want to make as much money as they can, and be elected by huge margins every time, and that can lead them to do many unsavory things, but nothing in the ballpark of creating a one-world government or suspending the constitution.
Partridge, a contributing editor to the global affairs magazine Diplomatic Courier, writes in a December 2008 news article entitled One World Government: Conspiracy Theory or Inevitable Future?:
I am skeptical that “global governance” could “come much sooner than that [200 years],” as Gideon posits. For one thing, nationalism—the natural counterpoint to global government—is rising. Some leaders and peoples around the world have resented Washington’s chiding and hubris over the past two decade of American unipolarity. Russia has been re-establishing itself as a “great power”; few could miss the national pride on display when China hosted the Beijing Olympics this summer; while Hugo Chavez and his ilk have stoked the national flames with their anti-American rhetoric. The departing of the Bush Administration could cause this nationalism to abate, but economic uncertainty usually has the opposite effect. […] Another point is that attempts at global government and global agreements have been categorical failures. The WTO’s Doha Round is dead in the water, Kyoto excluded many of the leading polluters and a conference to establish a deal was a failure, and there is a race to the bottom in terms of corporate taxes—rather than an existing global framework. And, where supranational governance structures exist, they are noted for their bureaucracy and inefficiency: The UN has been unable to stop an American-led invasion of Iraq, genocide in Darfur, the slow collapse of Zimbabwe, or Iran’s continued uranium enrichment. That is not to belittle the structure, as I deem it essential, but the system’s flaws are there for all to see.
Skeptics argue New World Order conspiracism leads people into cynicism, convoluted thinking, and a tendency to feel it is hopeless even as they denounce the alleged conspirators. Alternatively, they argue that right-wing populist movements galvanized by beliefs in a globalist conspiracy draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background.

Concerned that the apocalyptic millenarian theme in all conspiracy theories about a New World Order might motivate some to engage in leaderless resistance, which can encompass anything from patriot hacking to United States presidential assassination plots, Barkun writes:
The danger lies less in such beliefs themselves … than in the behavior they might stimulate or justify. As long as the New World Order appeared to be almost but not quite a reality, devotees of conspiracy theories could be expected to confine their activities to propagandizing. On the other hand, should they believe that the prophesied evil day had in fact arrived, their behavior would become far more difficult to predict.
Berlet expounds:
Right-wing populist movements can cause serious damage to a society because they often popularize xenophobia, authoritarianism, scapegoating, and conspiracism. This can lure mainstream politicians to adopt these themes to attract voters, legitimize acts of discrimination (or even violence), and open the door for revolutionary right-wing populist movements, such as fascism, to recruit from the reformist populist movements.
Criticisms of New World Order conspiracy theorists also come from within their own community. Despite believing themselves to be «freedom fighters», many right-wing conspiracy theorists hold views that are incompatible with their professed libertarianism, such as eliminationism, dominionism, and white supremacism. This paradox has led Icke, who argues that Christian Patriots are the only Americans who understand the truth about the New World Order (which he believes is controlled by a race of reptilians known as the «Babylonian Brotherhood»), to reportedly tell a Christian Patriot group:
I don’t know which I dislike more, the world controlled by the Brotherhood, or the one you want to replace it with.

Literature[]

The following is a list of notable published non-fiction books by New World Order conspiracy theorists:

• Davison, Mary M.. The Profound Revolution. The Greater Nebraskan.
• Allen, Gary. None Dare Call It Conspiracy. Buccaneer Books. ISBN 0899666612.
• Allen, Gary. Rockefeller: Campaigning for the New World Order. American Opinion.
• Allen, Gary. Say «No!» to the New World Order. Concord Press.
• Abraham, Larry (1988) [1971]. Call it Conspiracy. Double a Publications. ISBN 0-9615550-1-7.
• Still, William T. (1990). New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies. Huntington House Publishers. ISBN 0-910311-64-1.
• Cooper, Milton William (1991). Behold a Pale Horse. Light Technology Publications. ISBN 0-929385-22-5.
• Martin, Malachi (1991). Keys of This Blood: Pope John Paul II Versus Russia and the West for Control of the New World Order. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0671747231.
• Robertson, Pat (1992). The New World Order. W Publishing Group. ISBN 0-8499-3394-3.
• Wardner, James (1994) [1993]. The Planned Destruction of America. Longwood Communications. ISBN 0-9632190-5-7.
• Keith, Jim (1995). Black Helicopters over America: Strikeforce for the New World Order. Illuminet Press. ISBN 1-881532-05-4.
• Jones, Alan B. (2001) [1997]. Secrecy or Freedom?. ABJ Press. ISBN 0-9640848-2-1.
• Cuddy, Dennis Laurence (1999). Secret Records Revealed: The Men, The Money and The Methods Behind the New World Order. Hearthstone Publishing, Ltd.. ISBN 1-57558-031-4.
• Marrs, Jim (2001). Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-093184-1.
• Lina, Jüri (2002). Under the Sign of the Scorpion: The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire. Referent Publishing. ISBN 9197289779.
• Lina, Jüri (2004). Architects of Deception. Referent Publishing.
• Tedford, Cody (2008). Powerful Secrets. Hannover. ISBN 1-4241-9263-3.

In popular culture[]

Cultural critics, like Barkun, note that a vast popular audience has been introduced by some notable works of conspiracy fiction (novels, television series, and films) to various fringe theories related to New World Order conspiracism once confined to right-wing extremists. The following is a list in chronological order:

• Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson’s 1975 The Illuminatus! Trilogy
• Chris Carter’s 1993-2008 The X-Files franchise
• Steve Jackson Games 1994 card game and board game Illuminati: New World Order
• Richard Donner’s 1997 film Conspiracy Theory
• Warren Spector and Harvey Smith’s 2000 action role-playing game Deus Ex
• Dan Brown’s 2000 novel Angels & Demons
• Dan Brown’s 2009 novel The Lost Symbol

References[]

If ever you mention the term ‘New World Order’ (NWO) people tend to look at you like you’ve taken leave of your senses. This is understandable because the suggestion that a hidden cartel of so called elite globalists (described more accurately as the parasite class) control the world’s economy and its political agenda is beyond imagination for most. Thankfully, for those who care to retain an open mind, there’s no need to employ imagination because the historical evidence which establishes the fact is unequivocal.

The author H.G.Wells popularised the phrase in his book of the same name published in 1940. Wells viewed a single world government as a solution to war. In his opinion that government should be socialist. He also believed it should be based upon a global system of human rights protections.

Over the years various individuals and political institutions have used the term to encapsulate the idea of a single, unifying system of global governance. For example in the European Commission document ‘The European Union in the New World Order,‘ the transcript of a speech former EU Commission President José Manuel Barroso gave to Yale University, he speaks about the New World Order as a beneficial and benign system of global governance.

Similarly most politicians and globalist figures, who have spoken about the New World Order, refer to it in a positive light.

“Further world progress is now possible only through the search for a consensus of all mankind, in movement toward a new world order.”
[Mikhail Gorbachev 1988]

“The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fulfil the long-held promise of a new world order ”
[President George H.W Bush 1991]

The New World Order cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the single most significant component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change its perception
[Henry Kissinger 1994]

“[The] new world order that is in the making must focus on the creation of a world of democracy, peace and prosperity for all”
[Nelson Mandella 1994]

When global leaders have delivered their big New World Order speeches, most of these aspirational monologues have come in response to tumultuous global events. Wars, political upheaval, financial crisis and international trade disputes etc.

On the face of it they appear to be expressing the ideals advocated within the U.N Charter. Ostensibly a single system of international governance which compels every nation on earth to treat not only its own citizens but every other nation’s citizenry with respect, dignity and compassion. Which sounds like a very sensible idea. So why do some people keep banging on about the evil of the New World Order?

Firstly, the idea that any government can deliver peace and prosperity to its own citizens, let alone internationally, is an unsubstantiated hypothesis. Governments have consistently failed to deliver equality of opportunity to their people. The disparity between rich and poor is as large as it’s ever been and inequality of opportunity persists.

According to research by Credit Suisse, the combined wealth of the top 1% is greater than the total wealth of the rest of us put together. There are eight people who have more money than the bottom economic half of the world’s population. Over the next few years 500 people will pass on a combined $2.1 trillion inheritance to their heirs. This is more money than the entire economy of India, a country of 1.3 billion people.

The economist Thomas Pickety demonstrated, in the last 30 years, income growth, in real terms, for the lower half of the planet’s population has been zero while the top 1% have seen their real term incomes increase by 300%. To imagine that governments deliver peace and prosperity is without any substantiating evidence. All conflict, all injustice, social inequality, exploitation and even crime exists under the rule of government. To believe that government can or even would solve any of these problems is a blind faith.

Some nations enjoy better living standards than others but this is either a result of economic and technological development and/or one nations exploitation of another nations resources. These international disparities invariably emerge following some process of forced or coerced acquisition exercised by dominant governments at the expense of poorer governments. Either via war, colonisation, neocolonialism or simple corruption.

The average person in more affluent countries can afford some luxuries because underpaid or slave workers, somewhere else in the world, have provided the necessary raw materials or manufactured products for next to nothing. However, in times of austerity, governments never hesitate to squeeze the workers pay and conditions in their own nations, before moving on to asset strip essential services, in order to protect bank profits. They can do this because they have all the power and the population has none. So called democracy notwithstanding.

For those who propose a New World Order, such as Richard Haass president of the influential globalist think tanks the Council on Foreign Relations, it is the dream of a one world government led by a tightly bound clique of immensely powerful ‘policy influencers.’ Those who criticise this frequently referenced idea, universally castigated as ‘loony conspiracy theorists,’ it is simply global tyranny under an unelected, self appointed elite (parasites,) whose only real vision is that they are the rightful rulers of the Earth.

The Origins of the Modern New World Order

In 1902 the British business man and empire builder Cecil Rhodes died having amassed a staggering personal fortune by working people to death in the gold and diamond mines of South Africa. He founded De Beers Consolidated Mining in 1888 with the financial backing of the wealthiest bankers in the world, N.M. Rothschild & Sons. Upon his death he bequeathed his own immense fortune to create a number of projects, including both public foundations and a secret society.

Rhodes created seven wills in total. His 7th is the most well know as it established the Rhodes scholarship, which supports international postgraduate studies at Oxford University. Rhodes scholars have gone on to become some of the most powerful and influential people in the world of politics, science, medicine, business, the arts, academia, the law and the military.

However, the bulk of Rhodes’ fortune was set aside to create a single, one world government, based upon the British model of empire. It would be ruled from its centre by an Anglo-American elite who would exercise their control by covertly collaborating with, and manipulating, the world’s political, economic, scientific and cultural leaders.

In order to exert their covert power, the group Rhodes created had to be a secret organisation. As such, it wasn’t given any formal identification. Nor was it some sort of quasi-mystical, funny handshake brigade, though many of its members were also in other secret societies which were, but rather a group by voluntary association, shared interest and a united common purpose. Membership was offered based upon power and influence. Those who joined, agreed to take action in pursuit of the society’s aims. It wasn’t just a talking shop. They meant business.

The constituent groups came to be known by many names. ‘Milner’s Kindergarten,’ ‘The Round Table Group,’ ‘the Rhodes Crowd,’ ‘the Times Crowd,’ ‘The Chatham House Crowd,’ ‘All Souls Group’ and ‘the Cliveden set’ have all been names given to various organisations within this secret society over the years. It worked on the basis of ‘rings within rings.’ At the centre was a small group, ‘the Society of the Elect,’ who influenced the development and activities of its larger, working groups.

This compartmentalisation meant some society members were fully aware of the centre of power while others less so. However, all members agreed to the key objective. To establish a single global government, which some people today refer to as the ‘New World Order.’

Rhodes was a white supremacist and nationalist extremist. He was a man of his time and while this is rightly considered repugnant today it should be noted that his views were shared by the majority. He believed the English ‘Anglo-Saxon’ culture was superior to all others and the best thing that could ever happen to a nation was English colonial rule.

Consequently, he saw imperialism as a moral virtue. Therefore, any action that promoted Anglo-U.S. imperialist expansion, no matter what harm it inflicted upon the people, was seen by Rhodes and his fellow society members as righteous. In 1877 he wrote “Confession of Faith” in which he laid out his vision:

“I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings ……

…….Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire….

….To forward such a scheme what a splendid help a secret society would be a society not openly acknowledged but who would work in secret for such an object…….
……Let us form the same kind of society a Church for the extension of the British Empire. A society which should have members in every part of the British Empire working with one object and one idea we should have its members placed at our universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing through their hands just one perhaps in every thousand would have the mind and feelings for such an object….

……….For fear that death might cut me off before the time for attempting its development I leave all my worldly goods in trust to S. G. Shippard and the Secretary for the Colonies at the time of my death to try to form such a Society with such an object.”

Rhodes set about creating his elite group of royalty, colonialists, soldiers, bureaucrats, industrialists, spies, bankers, historians, scientists, artists, authors, politicians and others, to attempt to rule the world. In 1891 Rhodes, W.T.Stead (influential editor and journalist), Lord Nathan Rothschild (banker, politician & Rhodes’ trustee) and Reginald Baliol Brett (Lord Esher, a close friend and advisor to Queen Victoria and later King Edward VII and King George V) met to se4t their plan for global dominance in motion.

They immediately started their recruitment drive. They formed the ‘Society of the Elect’ by inviting Lord Alfred Milner (colonial administrator and powerful policy advisor) to join them. The next group they formed, who would remain closest to the seat of power, were ‘the Association of Helpers.’

In 1902, two months after Rhodes death, the NWO formed the transatlantic ‘Pilgrims Society.’ Rhodes aim had always been to unite the English-speaking world.

The British establishment mourned the loss of their American colony, but were also aware the British empire couldn’t be maintained indefinitely purely by military force. The Pilgrims Society was established to create the ‘special relationship’ between the U.S. and UK.

Today the first duty of any U.S. Ambassador to the UK is to meet with the British ‘Pilgrims Society.’ Conversely, the first duty of the UK Ambassador to the U.S. is to understand the wishes of the U.S. Pilgrims Society members.

The New World Moves Forward

When the Pilgrims Society was established a series of meetings took place in London in 1902 and New York in 1903. These were attended by the wealthiest individuals in U.S. and Britain and, therefore, the world.

Central banking was controlled from London, predominantly by Baron Alfred Rothschild, giving the British the monetary advantage. The Pilgrims Society set up the Rhodes Scholarship and Rhodes Trust in the U.S. In later years notable members have included Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Philip, Prince Charles, John D. and David Rockefeller, Winston Churchill, Henry Kissinger, Margaret Thatcher, Walter Cronkite and Allen and John Foster Dulles, to name but a few.

In southern Africa Lord Alfred Milner (‘Society of the Elect’ & Pilgrims Society member) brought together a number of talented and ruthless young lawyers and administrators into a collective which came to be known as ‘Milner’s Kindergarten.’ They worked to establish the Union of South Africa, predecessor to the current Republic of South Africa and instigator of the apartheid regime. They controlled much of the worlds diamond and gold markets.

In 1909, the Kindergarten was instrumental in the formation of the Round Table Movement. They established ‘Round Tables’ in Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere across the British Empire.

The influence and power of the individuals who form the NWO is well illustrated by Kindergarten and leading Round Table member Lionel Curtis. In the face of rising German power in Europe and the increasing economic dominance of the U.S, he was chief amongst those who recognised the British military empire couldn’t survive. In 1911 Lionel Curtis decided the British Empire should be transformed into an economic power called the British Commonwealth of Nations and that India should be given self-governance. India was granted independence in 1947 and the British Commonwealth of Nations established in 1948, exactly as Lionel Curtis and his Round Table Group had decreed more than 35 years earlier.

The difficulty many people have in grasping the way the NWO wield power often stems from their focus upon the long game. Their strategy isn’t built upon quick profits or immediate successes. Like any well made plan they know things will go awry. But each move is a step along the path to the ultimate objective of a New World Order. It doesn’t just span years but rather decades, across generations or even centuries. Inexorably moving towards the global economic and political dictatorship they are determined to create. Something they are currently very close to achieving thanks to their creation of the climate emergency.

In 1910 Scottish borne U.S. industrialist Andrew Carnegie established the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP.) Its trustees were all industrialists and financiers. Many were linked to the J.P.Morgan controlled American International Corporation (AIC,) which became the corporate giant American International Group (AIG) in 1919.

The board including Elihu Root (AIC and Carnegie lawyer), Cleveland H. Dodge (industrialist, arms manufacturer and financial backer of President Wilson), George W. Perkins (Morgan partner banker), G. J. Balch (AIC and Amsinck), R. F. Herrick (AIC), H. W. Pritchett (AIC.) Carnegie himself was the chairman of the U.S. Pilgrim Society and the CEIP was formed with a specific purpose:

“……dedicated to advancing cooperation between nations and promoting active international engagement by the United States.”

The CEIP strongly influences U.S. foreign policy today, with close links to the U.S. State Department and more than a century long involvement with the U.S. political establishment. It is seen by most people (who know about it) as a force for peace through promoting international cooperation. This is an example of the duplicity of the NWO, and illustrates its standard modus operandi. By presenting the outward appearance of benevolent ‘foundations’ numerous groups like the CEIP work behind closed doors to achieve the societies geopolitical aims.

Foundations were made ‘tax exempt’ in the U.S. as ‘charitable’ organisations by the Revenue Act of 1917. This enabled the wealthiest people on Earth to fund their various social engineering projects without the need to pay any income tax. Income tax is only for the little people.

From the outset the CEIP identified how useful war could be both as a profit making exercise and also as a catalyst for social change. Norman Dodd served as chief investigator in 1953 for the U.S. Congress Special Committee on Tax Exempt Foundations. He was given access to CEIP records and what he discovered was very different from commonly held public perception. Dodd testified to the Reece Committee:

“The trustees of the Foundation [CEIP] brought up a single question. If it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war…. They discussed this question… for a year and came up with an answer: There are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people. That leads them to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war.”

The CEIP was not formed in 1910 as a vehicle for peace. Quite the opposite. It is crucial to understand, for the NWO, war is merely a means to an end. It provides economic stimulus but also delivers huge social change. The use of war, conflict and armed insurrection are one of its primary methods to work towards the goal of one world government under the control of the corporate elite.

Once you know this, even mainstream interpretations of history render this glaringly obvious. Every significant conflict ends in a negotiated peace conference and every negotiation establishes further centralisation of power within larger regional bodies or intergovernmental organisations, consistently eroding sovereignty and consolidating power. War is a racket, and false flags, such as the sinking of the Lusitania which drew the U.S into WWI, are often favoured by the NWO to provide the necessary casus beli.

Following the end of WWI The NWO representatives, who formed the core of the U.S. and British delegations to Versailles, convened to create the system of international ‘think tanks’ that would enable them to rule from the shadows to this day. Under the direction of Lionel Curtis, the group of industrialists, financiers and political manipulators met to create the British Institute of International Affairs which received royal ascent to become the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in 1920. Many ‘Pilgrims Society’ members were present at the initial Paris meeting, and the American branch was formed as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in 1921, chaired by Elihu Root and funded by J.D.Rockefeller.

The New World Order Veil of Secrecy

Yet, despite the continuing power of these organisations, which still shapes foreign policy and international relations today, it was the creation of the RIIA’s ‘Chatham House Rule‘ in 1927, that enabled secret, undemocratic global governance to hide in plain sight. Historians have claimed the Chatham House Rule was designed to promote open dialogue among the most powerful people on the planet. We need only look at the current definition (following a couple of more recent revisions) to understand how misleading this interpretation is.

“When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.”

This enabled the creation of the ‘Deep State Milieu.’ A global network of power brokers who can hide in the open thanks, in no small measure, to the Chatham House Rule. Only a very few journalists and researchers attempt to break down this wall of silence. Doing so will almost certainly result in them being labelled as ‘conspiracy theorists,’ a free fall career trajectory or worse.

The groups who hide behind the Chatham House Rule include the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the RIIA, the Bilderberg Group, Le Cercle and others. Many older elite societies have incorporated it into their discussion ‘rules,’ such as the Knights of Malta, Skull and Bones, the Pilgrims Society, Round Table groups and more. Similarly, international corporations and financial institutions use it, as do government steering committees, policy advisory boards and especially boards of directors. That this has been sold to the public as an aid to ‘open and transparent’ decision-making is hilarious.

While the rule itself isn’t enforceable by law, any organisation, including government, can cite it as a matter of policy. Anyone who breaches it will face disciplinary action. When the people at the meeting, enforcing the policy, are able to buy governments that ‘discipline’ is not something easily ignored. No matter who you are.

Effectively it means the most powerful, wealthiest people on Earth can meet to discuss whatever plans they may have without any public scrutiny. In order to maintain this hidden agenda the MSM have to be entirely complicit, never asking difficult questions and always respecting the Chatham House rule. This they do without exception, usually because the people who own the MSM are also members of the various Deep State organisations that form the New World Order.

New World Order Wars

Based upon the CEIP recognition that war is the most effective vehicle for mass social change, the NWO used their global corporations, the political parties they funded, the leading politicians they corrupted and their international banking cartels to create the economic, political and social conditions that led to WWI. Intentionally pushing the planet towards catastrophe in order to bring about their desired outcome.

In addition they funded the Russian revolution to ensure they retained access to future Soviet markets and secure their investment no matter who won the war. However, following the Treaty of Versailles they recognised that further work needed to be done. Therefore they continued their project to create a one world dictatorship by starting WWII.

Essentially the NWO loaned Germany the money to pay the reparations following WWI, ensuring Germany owed them, not sovereign nations, their debt. Thus placing the German economy entirely in their control. They then created industrial and manufacturing cartels within Germany, with the money administered by the banks they owned making themselves the primary beneficiaries of their own loans and further consolidating control of the German economy. Next, they used their subsidiary industrial cartels to rebuild the German military and finance the rise of the Nazis.

Once the fascists were in power, they funded their war effort against the Allied Nations who they were also financing during WWII. They ran both sides of the war from their secure headquarters in neutral Switzerland and, when WWII ended, they used the vast profits they had made from the deaths of more than 60 million people to finance another attempt at establishing a one world government in the shape of the United Nations.

I recognise this is probably not the history you are familiar with. However, once again, the evidence which proves this to be the case is overwhelming. All of which you can read about here.

Just as WWI led to the creation of the failed league of Nations so WWII led to the establishment of the United Nations. It established a framework for world government but has yet to formally supersede the sovereignty of the member nations.

The next logical step for the NWO, on its road to the global capitalist / collectivist hegemony, was to create power blocks which genuinely destroyed national sovereignty. The economic control of the failed USSR project was a reasonable attempt but war in Europe provided the NWO the perfect opportunity to take a big step forward.

For the first time they were able to create an intergovernmental organisation, centrally administered by an unelected cabal, controlled by its own central bank, which managed many of the world’s richest economies. Today we call that project the European Union (EU) and the Deep State Milieu were at the heart of its creation.

Read The New World Order and the European Union to find out more.

Secret societies, the unseen hands that steer national and international affairs from the shadows, go back to the dawn of Western civilisation. The individual most famously linked to these occult forces is Adam Weishaupt (1748-1830), a Jesuit trained philosopher and lay professor of canon law at the University of Ingolstadt in southern Germany.

On 1 May 1776 Weishaupt founded a secret society called the ‘Perfectilibists’ (which soon became known as the ‘Order of the Illuminati’). The Illuminati recruited over 2,000 influential followers, but apparently lasted only until March 1785 when the Bavarian Government uncovered the conspiracy, exiled Weishaupt and outlawed the Order.

Some investigators suggest that rather than being wound up in 1785, the Illuminati (‘enlightened ones’) continued in existence to the present day. For the past 200 years controversy persisted over its role in influencing global affairs.

In 1798 John Robison, professor of philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, published Proofs of Conspiracy, a book alleging an Illuminati/Freemasonry plot to conspire against all religions, kings and governments of Europe.1

According to Robison, the Illuminati had been instrumental in fomenting the worst excesses of the French Revolution. That same year the Jesuit Abbé Augustin de Barruel published Memoires pour Servir a l’Histoire de Jacobinisme which supported Robison’s thesis.2

A century and a half later, Nesta Webster and William Guy Carr revived conspiracy theories about the Illuminati.

Nesta Webster (1876-1960), who was linked to the British Union of Fascists, wrote that rather than being banished, the Illuminati remained active and within a few years had “multiplied its hotbeds all through the south of Germany, and as a consequence in Saxony, in Prussia, in Sweden, and even in Russia.”3

William Guy Carr, an English born Canadian naval officer and lay Christian preacher, supported this thesis, maintaining that Weishaupt had been retained by moneylenders, including the House of Rothschild. Carr claimed there was an evil force at the forefront of an international conspiracy to destroy religious institutions and national governments in order to bring about a “Satanic One World Government.”4

According to Carr, the conspirators use a variety of methods to help them accomplish their aims, including:

1) Monetary and sex bribes to obtain control of individuals already occupying important positions. Such recruits are then held in bondage through blackmail, threats of financial ruin, public exposure or physical harm or death of their loved ones.

2) Illuminati in colleges and universities recruit students possessing exceptional mental ability.

3) Individuals trapped into Illuminati control are placed behind the scenes of all governments as ‘experts’ and ‘specialists’ who advise adoption of policies which serve the secret plans for one world government.

4) Control of the press and all other agencies which distribute information to the public.5

However, Illuminati researcher Dr. Tony Page says that Webster and Carr totally misrepresented the situation and were anti-Semites indulging in madcap conspiracy theory.

Page translated Weishaupt documents from the original German and presents him as a much maligned moral and virtuous man whose intentions were “assuredly high minded and benign.” A man who “strove for far nobler and morally exalted goals than are properly ascribed to him.

In fact, his intention (naive perhaps) but in my view, sincere, was to promote and disseminate human virtue, equality and freedom, and the happiness and dignity that flow from them.”6

Today, some see the Illuminati “as a major factor and influence in international power politics, allegedly fomenting wars, civil disorder and revolutions in their attempt to establish a one-world government.”7 It appears the jury is still out on whether the Illuminati is an ongoing occult force.

What we can say is that in our own intensive research over the past 10 years on the true origins of the First World War, we found no direct connection whatsoever to Weishaupt’s creation.

The secret society that we identify as responsible for the war employed similar tactics, but was a very different, very English creation. Furthermore, it remained concealed until exposed by the late Professor Carroll Quigley in the latter half of the 20th century.

Quigley (1910-1977) was a highly esteemed American historian who moved in Establishment circles, lectured at top universities, including Harvard, Princeton and Georgetown, and was a trusted consultant to both the US Department of Defense and US Navy.

He studied this secret network for 20 years and was permitted to examine its records. In 21st century parlance, Carroll Quigley was the whistle-blower par-excellence.

THE QUIGLEY ENIGMA

Professor Quigley wrote that the Rhodes secret society, or the ‘Milner Group’ as he called it after Cecil Rhodes’s death, was “one of the most important historical facts of the twentieth century” and of such significance that “evidence of its existence is not hard to find, if one knows where to look.”8

The ‘Milner Group’ exposed by Quigley is now widely recognised and variably named by others as the ‘Hidden Power’, the ‘Money Power’, the ‘Deep State’, or ‘the men behind the curtain’. All these labels are pertinent, but we call them, collectively, the Secret Elite.

Without Quigley’s revelations, the lid on this secret society would still be closed today. By opening Pandora’s Box and revealing some of the evils therein, he enabled others to see the truth.

His work exposing this powerful group has been enhanced and developed through years of careful research by other investigators into an explanation of how control of the civilised world has steadily been acquired through wars, economic manipulation and political chicanery by generations of privilege and money.

Our own work, including the book Hidden History: The Secret Origins of The First World War, closely examines the men involved and reveals their nefarious global influence was greater even than Quigley believed.

We garnered solid evidence that its members were directly responsible for taking the world to war in 1914 and deliberately prolonged the terrible carnage for over four long years while making massive fortunes from it.

The immensely rich and powerful Secret Elite controlled the British and US governments from behind the scenes, then as now, and much of the global mayhem over the last century arose at their instigation.

While Professor Quigley did mankind a great service, he remains an enigma. He exposed this ruthless, anti-democratic, totalitarian organisation and anguished over their determined attempts to suppress his writings, yet back-tracked on some of his original findings as if in fear of his life.

He also side-stepped a number of key issues and failed to discuss the Secret Elite’s role in the genesis of the 1914-18 war, or their audacious coup d’etat in 1916 whereby they literally took over the British government.

Rather bizarrely, Quigley stated that he agreed with their goals and aims.9 He did, however, disagree with their methods.

Their tendency to place power and influence into hands chosen by friendship rather than merit, their oblivion to the consequences of their actions, their ignorance of the point of view of persons in other countries or of persons in other classes in their own country – these things, it seems to me, have brought many of the things which they and I hold dear close to disaster.

In this Group were persons… who must command the admiration and affection of all who knew them. On the other hand, in this Group were persons whose lives have been a disaster to our way of life.

Unfortunately, in the long run, both in the Group and in the world, the influence of the latter kind has been stronger than the influence of the former.… I feel that the truth has a right to be told, and, once told, can be an injury to no men of good will.10

There is something deeply puzzling about Quigley’s assertion that while their methods brought much of what he held dear “close to disaster,” he agreed with their goals and aims for global control. These powerful men intended to replace democratically elected governments, arguing that their rule would be the rule of the best, whether or not the people wanted it.

A few researchers raise the possibility that Quigley was at some stage an actual member of the secret society, but failed to admit it. We believe it far more likely his strange statements of support were down to self-preservation.

In his major works – Tragedy and Hope and The Anglo-American Establishment – he narrated a history peopled by men who successfully concealed their power and influence, their connivance and common purpose. These individuals (and their descendants and agents ever since) conspired in secret towards the establishment of a world government that ultimately they, and they alone, would control.

It is worth noting that Quigley’s histories have themselves been subject to suppression. Tragedy and Hope was removed from bookstore shelves by unknown persons and withdrawn from sale shortly after its release. His publisher, the Macmillan Company, destroyed the book’s original plates and lied to him for the next six years.11

Quigley believed that powerful people suppressed the book because it exposed matters they did not want known. In this instance, unlike his exposure of the British Establishment, he did not name his tormentors.

IN THE BEGINNING

The opening passage of Quigley’s The Anglo-American Establishment may read like a John le Carré thriller, but it is no spy fiction:

One wintry afternoon in February 1891, three men were engaged in earnest conversation in London. From that conversation were to flow consequences of the greatest importance to the British Empire and to the world as a whole.

The staunch British imperialists who met that day – Cecil Rhodes, William Stead and Lord Esher – were well-known public figures but it should be noted from the outset that each was linked to infinitely greater wealth and influence. They were joined weeks later by Lord Alfred Milner and Lord Nathaniel Rothschild, the international merchant banker and richest man in the world.

He was inducted together with Lords Salisbury and Rosebery, whose families had for generations controlled the Conservative and Liberal parties in Britain and ruled the country as their personal fiefdom. Rothschild provided the financial clout while Salisbury and Rosebery provided the long-standing patronage and political networks.12

Cecil Rhodes, in association with Rothschild, had made his fortune in the gold and diamond mines of South Africa. Stead was the most prominent English journalist of the day and a moral crusader of great standing.

Esher represented the interests of the monarchy from Queen Victoria’s final years, through the exuberant excesses of King Edward VII, to the more sedate but pliable King George V. It was through Esher that the monarch was kept fully appraised of Secret Elite business.13

Alfred Milner, a contemporary of Rhodes at Oxford University, was a self-made man of ability and ideas who began his working life as an aspiring lawyer, turned to journalism, led the political agitation against the Boer separatists in South Africa, and eventually emerged as an immensely powerful and successful power-broker.

Milner was the master manipulator, the iron-willed assertive intellectual who offered that one essential factor: strong leadership. On Cecil Rhodes’s death in 1902, he became the undisputed leader of the world’s most powerful and far reaching secret society. These were the founding fathers of what we recognise today as the ‘New World Order’ movement.

They met at private town houses and magnificent stately homes. These might be lavish weekend affairs or dinners in private clubs which provided suitable London bases for their intrigues. The heady mix of international finance, political manipulation and the control of government policy was at the heart of this small clique who set out to dominate the world.

They drew up their plan for a secret society that would take political control in Britain and, later by extension, the United States of America. They renewed the Anglo-Saxon bond between the two countries – the ‘special relationship’ – expanding their power base to bring Anglophile Americans into the secret brotherhood; men who would go on to dominate the world through financial institutions, global corporations and dependent governments.

Wars, revolutions and other major events of the last 100 years are directly attributable to these individuals. The Boer War and the destruction of Germany in 1914-18 were merely the first steps in their long-term strategy.

The secret society comprised concentric circles with an inner core of trusted associates known as “The Society of the Elect” who unquestionably knew that they were members of an exclusive cabal devoted to taking and holding power worldwide.

A second circle “The Association of Helpers” was larger and quite fluid in its membership. A third outer ring comprised members who may or may not have been aware they were either an integral part of, or inadvertently being used by, a secret society, though “it is more likely they knew it.”14

The overlapping rings are themselves concealed, hidden behind formally organised groups of no obvious political significance. As Quigley put it, the group was able to “conceal its existence quite successfully, and many of its influential members, satisfied to possess the reality of power rather than the appearance of power, are unknown even to close students of British history.”15

In the early 20th century its tentacles spread throughout the British Empire to America, Russia, France, the Balkans and South Africa. Their targets were agents in the highest offices of foreign governments who were bought and nurtured for future use.

What’s more, they had the power to control history, to turn history from enlightenment to deception. The Secret Elite dictated the writing and teaching of history from the ivory towers of academia down to the smallest of schools. They carefully controlled the publication of official government papers, the selection of documents for inclusion in the official version of history, and refused access to any evidence that might betray their covert existence.

Incriminating documents were burned, removed from official records, shredded, falsified or deliberately rewritten, so that what remains for genuine researchers and historians is carefully selected material. Their ambitions overrode humanity and the consequences of their actions have been minimised, ignored or denied.

SPREADING THEIR TENTACLES

One of the problems facing anyone who turns to Quigley’s seminal The Anglo American Establishment is that it makes for a difficult read. Like several of the early chapters of the Christian Bible, his inter-connecting lists name many from the aristocracy, big business, high finance, politics and the press. Some were linked by matrimonial alliances while others by their gratitude for titles and positions of power.20 He devotes an entire chapter revealing how the Secret Elite controlled The Times (then Britain’s most influential newspaper) for more than 50 years with the exception of the period 1919-1922.21

A list of Oxford graduates, especially those given fellowships at All Souls College, included Milner’s heir apparent, Lionel Curtis, and numerous others who later gained positions of great significance and power.

Indeed, they all did, every single name listed by Quigley. Oxford gave the Secret Elite access to influential professorships, some of which they created and funded themselves, such as the Beit Chair of Colonial History, established in 1905.

It remains a serious concern that Carroll Quigley was absolutely correct when pointing an accusing finger at those who monopolised “so completely the writing and the teaching of the history of their own period.”22

There is no ambivalence in his accusation. The Secret Elite controlled the writing and teaching of history through numerous avenues including the press, but none more effectively than at Oxford University where they held huge influence over Balliol, New College and All Souls, and largely dominated the intellectual life of Oxford in the field of history.23 They ensured we learn only those ‘facts’ that support their version of history.

The influence was so powerful that they controlled the Dictionary of National Biography, meaning the Secret Elite wrote the biographies of its own members. They created their own official history of key members for public consumption, striking out any incriminating evidence and portraying the best public-spirited image that could be safely manufactured. Has anything changed?

Oxford University was also the Secret Elite base for the Rhodes Scholarships, funded by the legacy left by Cecil Rhodes when he died in 1902. Rhodes’s wish was to create a “worldwide” secret group devoted to English ideals and to the Empire as the embodiment of these ideals,24 and the scholarships brought that international dimension to the society.

They “were merely a facade to conceal the secret society, or, more accurately, they were to be one of the instruments by which members of the secret society could carry out his purpose.” Professor Quigley leaves us in no doubt that the secret society is the real power behind the scholarships.25

From its inception, Rhodes Scholarships favoured American students, with 100 places allocated, two for each of the 50 states and territories, whereas only 60 were made available for the entire British Empire and, strangely, several from Germany. The ‘best talents’ from the ‘best families’ were to be nurtured at Oxford University and imbued with an appreciation of ‘Englishness’ and the importance of the “retention of the unity of the Empire.”

In The Anglo-American Establishment, Quigley concluded that the secret cabal advanced its power-base through a triple-front penetration in politics, the press and education.26 We would go further, and can but wonder why he omitted banking and the military-industrial complex from his analysis. Politicians will always be easy targets.

Ambition, greed and sexual proclivity can be nurtured and harnessed. Sometimes men of real stature come to the fore and bring strong leadership to the cause.

In the early years Alfred Milner assumed that mantle. Fired by a zeal forged by Ruskin at Oxford, he was consumed by the need to establish the primacy of upper-class Englishness at the pinnacle of world power. He believed in the need to bring the British Empire and the American ideal together to sweep aside any rival for world domination.

Milner went to South Africa in 1897 to save it from falling to the Boers. He deliberately started the Boer War and saved the diamond and gold mines for fellow Secret Elites Rhodes, Rothschild, Beit and Bailey. He was idolised by Cecil Rhodes who placed his legacy in Milner’s safekeeping, and he was rewarded by the King with a knighthood and then a Viscountcy.

Critically, in South Africa between 1897 and 1905, he built a personal following of young carefully chosen civil servants who loyally followed his every decision behind the scenes in British and world politics. Lord Alfred Milner was arguably the most important man living in the first decades of the 20th century, yet his name remains virtually unknown outside academic and political circles. Why?

MILNER’S LEGACY

To demonstrate the privileged path that the Secret Elite created in their quest to establish a ‘New World Order’, we have chosen to follow the trail that began with Alfred Milner, the undisputed leader for 23 years following Rhodes’s death in 1902.

Critically, his most important achievement in South Africa was the creation of a network of extremely able acolytes to whom he entrusted the future direction of his cause: the domination of the world by the Anglo-Saxon race. His secretariat in South Africa comprised young men of “breeding, ability and conviction” from Oxford University, All Souls College in particular.

Dubbed “Milner’s Kindergarten,” they absorbed his commitment to Ruskin’s philosophy, his disdain for career politicians and his concern that democracy as it had developed in the Western world was corrupt and untrustworthy. It was akin to “a religious brotherhood like the Jesuits, a church for the extension of the British Empire.”27

From 1909 Milner began expanding the Kindergarten into a highly secretive organisation called the “Round Table,” with branches in South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and, crucially, the United States. (It is not to be confused with a benign charitable organisation of the same name.)

The grand Arthurian title suggested equality of rank and importance, nobility of purpose and fairness in debate, but was nothing of the kind.

Milner, and most of the Group, held democracy in contempt, and far inferior to rule by those who had an “intellectual capacity for judging the public interest” and “some moral capacity for treating it as paramount to their own.”28

Wealth, of course, also counted and “the key to all economics and prosperity was considered to rest with banking and finance”29 which the Secret Elite controlled. Alfred Milner acted as both elder statesman and father figure to the Round Table with his role described as “President of an Intellectual Republic.”

The Round Table groups across the world kept in touch through regular correspondence and a quarterly journal called The Round Table that was controlled by the Secret Elite.

They saw Britain as the defender of all that was fine or civilised in the modern world. Her “civilising mission” was to be carried out by force if necessary, for the “function of force is to give moral ideas time to take root.”

Asians, for example, would be compelled to accept “civilisation” on the grounds they would be better off under British rule than that of fellow Asians.

“To be sure, the blessings to be extended to the less fortunate peoples of the world did not include democracy.” They would simply be educated up to a level where they could appreciate and cherish “British ideals.”30 The ‘White Man’s Burden’ is indeed great.

Milner, his Round Table, and the Secret Elite generally saw the new Germany with its economic, industrial and commercial strength as the great threat to their global ambitions.

In The Round Table journal of August 1911, Lord Lothian, a member of the Secret Elite’s inner core, wrote: “There are at present two codes of international morality – the British or Anglo-Saxon and the continental or German. Both cannot prevail.”31

Alliances with France and Russia were created for the specific task of destroying Germany through a prolonged war.32 These men had no fear of war, though they rarely put themselves in the direct firing line.

EXPANDING THE ANGLO-AMERICAN PRIMACY

Cecil Rhodes had long dreamed of Anglo-American unity, and in 1891 actually discussed the possibility of achieving it by Britain joining the United States.33 On his death, the Secret Elite developed an even greater appreciation of America’s vast potential and the need for closer union.

They adjusted the original concept of British race supremacy to Anglo-Saxon supremacy, so that Rhodes’s dream had only to be slightly modified. They created a common ideology and world outlook among the peoples of the United Kingdom and the United States, and the instruments and practices of cooperation in order to pursue parallel policies.34

Alfred Milner believed these goals should be pursued by a secret political and economic elite influencing “journalistic, educational and propaganda agencies” behind the scenes. The flow of money into the United States during the 19th century advanced industrial development to the immense benefit of the millionaires it created: Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt and their associates. The Rothschilds represented British interests, either directly through front companies or indirectly through agencies they controlled.

Small groups of massively rich individuals on both sides of the Atlantic knew one another well, and the Secret Elite in London initiated the very select and secretive dining club, the Pilgrims, that brought them together on a regular basis. On 11 July 1902, an inaugural meeting was held at the Carlton Hotel of what became known as the London Chapter of the Pilgrims Society. It was to have a select membership limited by individual scrutiny to 500.

Ostensibly, The Pilgrims was created to “promote goodwill, good friendship and everlasting peace” between Britain and the United States, but its highly secretive and exclusive membership leaves little doubt as to its real purpose.35

Seven months later the American chapter was formally created on similarly exclusive lines. This was the pool of wealth and talent that the Secret Elite drew together to promote its agenda in the years preceding the First World War.

Behind an image of the Pilgrim Fathers, the persecuted pioneers of Christian values, this elite cabal advocated the idea that “Englishmen and Americans would promote international friendship through their pilgrimages to and fro across the Atlantic.”

It presented itself as a spontaneous movement to promote democracy across the world, and most of the membership probably believed that. But the Pilgrims included a select collective of the wealthiest figures in both Britain and the United States who were deeply involved with the Secret Elite. They shared Rhodes’s dream and wanted to be party to it.36

In Britain, at least 18 members of the Secret Elite, including Lords Rothschild, Curzon, Northcliffe and Esher, and Sir Edward Grey and Arthur Balfour, attended Pilgrims dinners, though the regularity of their attendance is difficult to establish. Such is the perennial problem with secret groups. We know something about the guests invited to dinner but not what was discussed between courses.

In New York, members included both the Rockefeller and Morgan dynasties, and many men in senior government posts. The power elite in America was New York centred, carried great influence in domestic and international politics, and was heavily indulgent of Yale, Harvard and Princeton universities.

Within a short period of time they created an American version of what Carroll Quigley termed the triple-front penetration of politics, the press and education. The Pilgrims Society brought together American money and British aristocracy, royalty, presidents and diplomatic representatives. It was indeed a special relationship.37

Because closer ties with the United States were considered of such crucial importance, a Round Table group was also established in New York to further develop links between Westminster and Washington, and high finance in the City of London and Wall Street.

It was supported by Rockefeller and Morgan, managed in secret, hidden from the electorate and the politicians, and normally its meetings went unreported in the press. Members aimed to gain political influence and set the political agenda in the US, but they were rarely willing to speak out in public.

All was to be carried out in secret.38 How dangerous are those who believe they have the capacity to think and plan for the world’s good, impervious to the will of the people and disdainful of democracy itself?

The first American to be directly associated with the Round Table was George Louis Beer, an outspoken Anglophile academic and writer who contributed reports and articles to their magazine for many years. Beer called Alfred Milner “the intellectual leader of the most progressive school of imperial thought throughout Europe,” and was one of the chief supporters of America’s intervention in the First World War. His link to the Secret Elite opened many associated doors and Beer became the recognised expert on colonial questions at the Paris Peace Conference in 1918-19.

In the manner which typifies how these powerful men write their own histories, Beer and his Secret Elite compatriot, Lord Eustace Percy, later drew up the outline plan for the History of the Peace Conference.

In other words, the Secret Elite made sure that the record for future generations was one they dictated. They supported Beer’s appointment to the head of the Mandate Group of the League of Nations and he was one of the creators of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London (Chatham House), its American branch, The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and sister organisation the Institute of Pacific Relations.39 Lest there be any doubt, these were all Secret Elite creations.

Milner’s Kindergarten had been expanded into the Round Table and that, in turn, had been expanded into the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, the CFR in New York, and other Institutes across the globe.

The dominant role of the CFR in controlling American policy and politics cannot be overstated because almost all of America’s leadership has stemmed from this elite group.

That includes US presidents and their advisors, cabinet members, ambassadors, members of the board of the Federal Reserve, directors of the largest banks and financial houses, presidents of universities and heads of metropolitan newspapers, news services, and television networks.

“It is not an exaggeration to describe this group as the hidden government of the United States.”40

It is no less than a carbon copy of how the Secret Elite took control of Britain in the 20th century. These organisations were direct extensions of the Round Table Groups and have helped drive the Secret Elite agenda through the 20th century and beyond.

Carroll Quigley was the trailblazer in unmasking the Secret Elite, and it is plain to see they still dominate the British and American governments among others; still control banking and finance, politics, the press, the military-industrial complex, the universities and the key offices of state.

Wherever you live, ask yourself this, “is it happening here?” The grotesque plan set in motion by Rhodes and Milner at the end of the 19th century rolls on. Can it be stopped from reaching its ultimate destination – totalitarian, elite-controlled one world government?

The challenge is to reach beyond what Gore Vidal described as a conditioned response to the word ‘conspiracy’ where people react with a smirk and a chuckle; where historical analysis and contemporary evidence that demonstrates the power these people wield is dismissed as the product of ‘nuts and loners’ or fringe extremists.41

If we give up trying to educate the doubters, give up telling it as it really is, we the people are doomed to an Orwellian nightmare.

By Jim MacGregor & Gerry Docherty, NewDawnMagazine.com

Readers are encouraged to obtain a copy of the authors’ book Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War and visit the authors’ blog at FirstWorldWarHiddenHistory. Hidden History is available from all good bookstores and online retailers.

Footnotes:

1. E-book available at www.sacred-texts.com/sro/pc/pc03.htm
2. E-book available at books.google.com.pe
3. Nesta H Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, HRP edition, 254
4. William Guy Carr, Pawns in the Game, X
5. Ibid., X-XI
6. Tony Page, A Brief Justification of My Intentions by Adam Weishaupt
7. ‘The Enlightened Ones: The Illuminati and the New World Order’ by Michael Howard, New Dawn Special Issue 11
8. Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, IX-X
9. Ibid., XI
10. Ibid., IX-X
11. YouTube.com
12. Gerry Docherty & Jim Macgregor, Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, 17-29
13. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, 137
14. Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, X
15. Ibid., 4-5
16. YouTube.com
17. D. J. Markwell, ‘Zimmern, Sir Alfred Eckhard (1879–1957)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004, www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/37088
18. Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, X
19. Docherty & Macgregor, Hidden History, 14
20. Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, 15
21. Ibid., 101-116
22. Ibid., 197
23. Ibid., 84-100
24. Ibid., 37
25. Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 131
26. Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, 15
27. Ibid., 34
28. Ibid, 134
29. Ibid., 122
30. Ibid., 133-6
31. Ibid., 329
32. Docherty & Macgregor, Hidden History, 75-96
33. Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, 38
34. Ibid., 150
35. Docherty & Macgregor, Hidden History, 210-224
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid.
39. Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, 168
40. G. Edward Griffin, The Creature From Jekyll Island, 110
41. Gore Vidal, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace

© New Dawn Magazine and the respective author.