So Much For The New World Order.

We’ve had a few folks on this site who posted quite enthusiastically their conviction the U. S. government is run by politicians who are intent on forming a world government, leaving our current one behind.   “Evidence” is a couple of U. S. Presidents referring to a  “New World Order” in public remarks.

These were taken out of context and referred to unrestricted trade and monetary flows.  Most of this was in the early days of Europe’s Euro, the common European currency.

As we know, the use of one currency in Europe is struggling just now.  When countries have different political histories, it is hard to make such an idea work.  One country may need inflation to stimulate its economy while another would be hurt by inflation.

The U. S., Mexico and Canada have reduced trade barriers and, from what I gather, has helped all the total well being of all three.  Individual industries and people have been harmed, however.

If a New World Order, one international government replacing many national ones, has a chance of succeeding, we should already have seen it.  It should have succeeded in the old Soviet Union.  Before that in the old British Empire.

When I crossed the border from Norway into Sweden several years ago, I did not have to stop.  There were no border barriers, stops or restrictions.  Yet, those two countries will  not dissolve into one.

There are things to worry about.  A world government is not one of  them.

24 Responses

  1. entech

    Jon, you would make an awful conspirator/conspiratist ? Don’t you know nothing is so obvious. The “real” powers that be just throw out these pretend world order comments by (apparent) leaders to keep you of track.

    The world order is buried very deep and is very secret, that’s how they keep their power, no one knows they have it and so can’t try to take it from then See footnote 1). The world government exists by using the illuminato/opus dei/freemasons/Rosicrucians/Knights of St.Columbus etc. These organisations attract a lot of fringe dwellers who can’t accept the real world, among them, though, are the few that are mainly in it looking for advantage. These few are recruited into the inner sanctum (so to speak) where some power is attained through mutual self interest, however, from this inner group another group is recruited, scarcely known by the inner sanctum, rumoured at by the membership and completely unknown to the world at large, but, it goes deeper – be very afraid.

    Seriously conspiracies within conspiracies are as old as shamans/witchdoctors and priesthoods.

    Footnote. it is best they do stay out of sight because there will always be some who will try to usurp the power potential for themselves, either for the sake of it or because of some messiah complex. Stalin and Robespierre come to mind, Mao and Albert Mohler (potentially) and any one who knows better than people what people want or need, the worst being those that know what GOD wants for people (as relayed through his messengers on earth).

    The best line I found in the piece was:
    By 1996, as the financier George Soros says (quoting the psychoanalyst David Tuckett), the euro had become a “fantastic object”: it was unreal but immensely attractive.
    That neatly sums up organised religion.

    1. Wanna B Sure

      Dispensational Premillianalists have bought into this , with their apocolyptic eschatology, hook, line, and sinker. AKA Neo Evangelicals, Christian Zionists, most of theFundamentalists, and many of the various “survivalists/neo Nazi sects. The” theology of glory” as verses the “theology of the cross” feeds it. Unfortunately, much of the TV ministries are involved with it too, giving the impression that it is the norm, (which it isn’t). The “Prosperity preachers/ motivational seminar people ” are too busy making money to bother much. The current spat with the IRS on the issue of “freedom of speech” from the pulpit in endorsing specific candidates is also a part of this, as are several other divisive issues.

  2. Norway and Sweden have homogeneous populations; the US and Mexico don’t. The concept of border-less nations is a recipe for a third-world globe.

    1. entech

      Fascinating thought, Norway and Sweden have populations consisting of human beings, what doers America and Mexico have cats and dogs? and Canada in the north (although quite a few French and you would have to draw the line somewhere – so France and Yorkshire are out)?? Newfoundland?

    2. Kevin 3:26 “Norway and Sweden have homogeneous populations.”

      Perhaps “more homogeneous” would be more accurate. They are more homogeneous than Mexico and the U. S.–maybe somewhat like the U. S. and Canada. Anyway, that’s my point–if Norway and Sweden have borderless countries, and do not unite under one government, it’s really unlikely it will happen other places.

  3. Michael Ross

    “There are things to worry about. A world government is not one of them.”

    Oh oh! I’m agreeing with a leftist whacko again. If I were Catholic I’d have to go to confession on that one. There will be no world government this time around. That is a thing of the past. From the Tower of Babel through the great slave empires of the ancient world (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome) the known world was under the control of one government to varying degrees. That ended with the spread of Christianity and the fall of Rome. They are trying to reestablish the ancient pattern. The European Union was to be a building block toward that goal but it is on the verge of unraveling. From the morning Jesus Christ walked out of that tomb, from that instant on He would be the only Ruler the world would ever know. Any subsequent attempt at world government would end in colossal failure. “There are things to worry about”, right again. The collapse of this final attempt will cause great suffering and may send the world into a new dark age. Hopefully it wont last as long as the one left in the wake of Rome’s debacle.

    1. Michael 3:10 “Oh oh! I’m agreeing with a leftist whacko again.” Sorry to hear that, Michael. 🙂

      Not to worry. We part company when you assert it is because Jesus Christ is the ruler of the world. That there will be no ruler of the world probably does involve religion to some degree. That’s because there are, at this moment, several “Jesus Christs”, all different gods, all claiming to be the only god and ruler of all. There followers will kill those of other gods, including Jesus, if they have the chance.

      If there was some way to know Jesus is the real deal, and, if you could stamp out all these other gods, Jesus might have a chance.

    2. pk

      Doesn’t the Bible say the beast will consume the entire world and nobody can buy or sell without its mark though? It won’t last for long , but it’s going to happen.

  4. pk,9171,1877388-2,00.html

    This isn’t a subject that can be proven in 5 minutes. It takes a lot of research and an overall understanding of geo-politics. It also can’t be easily dis-proven by a short blurb from someone who hasn’t taken the time to investigate it, because “it should’ve happened by now if it was going to.” The push towards globalism and UN supremacy can’t be debated. Here’s a clip of the Def Sec telling Congress the military takes its orders from the UN! But hey, it must be a fake video because it’s on the internet and people who believe it are now the terrorists according to the government.

    When Robert Welch talked about this over 50 years ago, one could say his words were a bit speculative, but today, for someone to blatantly deny that his warnings are coming true is just crazy. European royalty that owns the mega banks headquartered in the Crown(a city state inside London) who have infiltrated US politics and control D.C.(military arm) and the Vatican State(religious arm) makes up the system that runs and owns most of the world. The trinity of the Beast. I keep forgetting the Bible isn’t true. I’m sorry Jon. You’re right, the next major world empire that follows the Roman Empire, which consumes the entire world that the anti-Christ seizes control of is just rubbish. The Bible isn’t true, so that scenario can’t happen in real life. There is no empire of oligarchs that wield undeserved power over the people. Everything is fine. Everybody, don’t even look into how the world really works, just listen to Jon. Just trust in the established system and do whatever they say. Keep drinking the tap water full of toxic chemicals. Ignore that our standard of living is going down and our dollar is worthless. Don’t look into who owns the Federal Reserve System. Don’t look into what Cecil Rhodes left all his fortune for. Don’t look up the Georgia Guidestones. Don’t even listen to this speech by JFK warning us about the people behind Communism and their threat to the country in many different ways. Everything is ok.

    1. PK When you have a bunch of links, especially together, it looks like the 100-150 spam messages that arrive every day. The spam filter dumped it into the spam box–I never look at those messages so I’m glad you posted it had not gone up–I scrolled through there and found it.

      1. pk

        Oh ok, thanks. I normally post them with a space after the url, but the hyperlinks have been working lately, but this one did have a few more than usual.

          1. pk

            It’s the 2nd to the last link i posted. Surely you look at the material i post in full right? Because you’re always asking for proof of a New World Order, and i post pieces of the puzzle on here. I can’t show you everything, it’s 99% up to you to wake up.

          2. pk 1:44 “Surely you look at the material I post…I can’t show you everything, it’s 99% up to you to wake up.”

            The last series of material, some 3-4 hours worth was just talking heads saying, “There’s a new world order.” I wasn’t worth my time. That being the case, I’m not very motivated to look at more talking heads saying the same thing.

          3. pk

            Those couple videos are a fraction of what i’ve posted and they’re just a starting point. Putting names to the people involved. It’s up to you to do the research. I didn’t post anything like that this time. The one i’m asking about is a clip from c-span. What do you think about it?

          4. pk

            The last one link is a full JFK speech where he warns about secret societies and a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy threatening our country.

          5. pk

            I have a link to the same website you sited. Time magazine, Russia Today, a clip of the EU President talking about global governance. He’s talking about economic global governance, which is the first step towards total world government. Like i’ve said before, nothing alone will ever prove there’s a massive conspiracy to conquer the world, there’s a lot of pieces to the puzzle.

          6. pk 4:29 “Like I’ve said before, nothing alone will ever prove there’s a massive conspriacy to conquer the world, there’s a lot of pieces to the the puzzel.”

            You shamed me into looking at most of the links. On the Sessions one, Panetta explained they try to get international cooperation when they can, but retain the right to defend the U. S. That seems like what they do. They see international cooperation as self interest at times. Sessions apparently never sees international cooperation as self interest. He’s nuts if he thinks that way.

            That being said, I’ll bet Sessions voted for every increase in the Pentagon’s budget since he’s been in DC. If he has complaints about “international cooperation”, he should vote to reduce the $ available. I hope you’ll show me he has consistantly opposed larger military budgets.

            On the others references to “world government” ( I didn’t have time to watch all of JFK’s 19 minutes, I assume he eventually referred to “world government” or something similar), they are merely more of the same.

            You make this great leap from watching clips of people talking about international economic deals to a belief these will inevitably lead to a “world government”. I don’t see anything inevitable about it. I don’t think it is impossible either. It’s just that the path to a “world government” is just as likely to follow isolationist thinking we associate with conservatives as it is international or global thinking.

            Where you see a pattern, I see chaos, all kinds of turmoil and competition of different thinking and the outcome totally unpredictable. A state of chaos and unpredictability is simply a normal and historical condition.

            For example, I could see a world disaster coming from the environment, more and more isolation of mosture flooding one area, the rest draught. Environmental issues are not local, they are international. That could lead nations all over the world to conclude we need more “world government” rules. But, the “world government” conspirasists today resist any world cooperation on the environment–perhaps causing the same thing they are trying to avoid. It’s all part of normal chaos.

          7. pk

            “Order out of chaos” is more like it. The point of the Session’s clip, is that Panetta flat out told Congress they don’t need their permission to deploy the military. They would seek international approval, then advise Congress on what they’re going to do, and see whether or not they’re going to get Congressional approval. In other words, they take their orders from the UN and Congress doesn’t matter.

          8. pk

            Expanding, Sessions said that he’s all for having international support, but made it clear the only legal basis for deploying the military is from the Congress. Panetta clearly doesn’t think so considering he had a few chances to acknowledge that, but he is more concerned with a UN resolution. Remember Libya? When we used Al-Qaeda backed rebels, special forces and the Air Force to overthrow Gaddafi and murder him, completely without Congress? That’s why Sessions is asking these questions.

          9. pk 2:58 Of couse I understand Sessions was saying Congress should have a voice in military decisions–and–I know Congress is required for a declaration of war. And, I Panetta said he would not guarantee Congress would be consulted.

            That’s the way its been for years. Basically, I agree it would be better if Congress made decisions on war and intervention. But, it won’t solve the problem. Bush went to Congress, or Congressional leaders, and said he wanted their agreement to allow him to invade Iraq if conditions got bad enough so it was necessary. When they agree, he went in for no good reason as he had planned all along.

            Sessions is complaining about something that is decades old. Why doesn’t he do something about it when his own party is in power?

          10. pk

            I agree Sessions is probably a part of the problem we have with the wars, but at least in the past the military industrial complex got some sort of permission from Congress to go to war. Now it has gone to a completely new level where the Executive branch is now telling Congress they have no say anymore and the most important authority is the UN. I thought Obama was going to fix all that. All that to me is a little scary. Can the UN declare martial law in America now too? Can the UN make a resolution where all guns are to be confiscated in the US and order the military to carry it out? Where does this lead?

Comments are closed.