What is the New World Order?

A viewer asked this question on 4/26/2000:


JesseGordon gave this response on 5/4/2000:

Let me expound a few points of interpretation on the "NEW WORLD ORDER".


The concept of "New World Order" isn't really "new" -- it's as old as the dollar bill. Look on the back, below the pyramid on the left side -- the Latin phrase "Novus Ordo Seclorum" means (you guessed it) "New World Order." So, in the largest sense, the United States IS the "new world order," in the sense of something like democracy, freedom, citizens' rights, etc.


The phrase gained popularity in the early 1990s when Pres. Bush (Sr., not the one running for president now) used it to describe how we might establish a post-Cold War framework for viewing the world. The "new world order" would have the U.S. as the sole superpower instead of the previous "bipolar world order" with the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. facing off all around the world.
People who supported Bush would interpret the phrase as meaning "the post-Cold War situation" or "let's acknowledge that the U.S. is the world leader."
People who opposed Bush would interpret the phrase in the more sinister way -- as a first step towards World Government. And that leads us to the...


Look again at that dollar bill where the Latin phrase is written -- the pyramid, and the floating eye above it, are symbols of a conspiracy to rule the world, in the view of many conspiracy theorists. Those symbols are all tied up with the Masons (a fraternal lodge), the Trilateral Commission (a group of political thinkers), and other secretive and mysterious organizations.

Supporters of that view believe that the Masons & Trilats, among others, intend to set up a world government; that's the ultimate association of "New World Order" with your original question about "cults."

At its deepest conspiratorial level, the world government is the one predicted in the Biblical book of Revelations, and the leader of the world government would be the anti-Christ. The basis for opposing the "new world order" comes in part from religious fears of the Day of Revelations. That's the connection to religion -- I guess you could interpret that as "devil worship", since it involves the anti-Christ.


Conspiracies aside, opposition to the "New World Order" might also mean one is opposed to the U.S. acting as the world's policeman; one is opposed to giving the U.N. more power; or one is opposed to free trade and an open world market for the flow of goods and people. Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, using examples of two presidential candidates, would likely say they opposed the "new world order" in that sense.
One of the most fun aspects of politics is that the same phrase can mean such different things to different people!

Anonymous asked this question on 5/30/2000:

Is this country heading for a one government under one flag as predicted by the bible?

Why is the government so eager to disarm the American people.

Is it true that there is a secret organization who is planning this One World take over and why is it not being reported to the public?

What are the plans of this One World take over and has the Us government really given up its sovereignty to the United Nations.

These are very hard questions, but we as free people have a right to know these questions and we have a right to know who is behind this organization.

madpol gave this response on 6/1/2000:

There may come a day when there is a single World Government under one flag. There may also come a day when the Lion lies down with the Lamb in a manner that doesn't involve mint sauce. But I wouldn't start packing for the Rapture just yet.

Anyone who thinks that Planet Earth is in imminent danger of coming under one government knows little of history, current events or human nature.

The fact is that there are more officially recognized nations then ever before and the trend toward fragmentation of larger states is accelerating. It will, in fact, take some fancy politicking and better leadership than we have recently produced to prevent the fragmentation of the US into several nations over the next 50 years.

There is a strong movement for internationalization, but the impetus is coming from mega-corporations who are being made obsolete by new computer and communications technologies. In fact, one of the early results of international government is likely to be the increased regulation and taxation of the megacorps.

Meanwhile, growing ethnic tensions worldwide make the imposition of International, and often national Law increasingly difficult. And growing isolationism in the US is almost certain to prevent any rapid growth of UN power.

Nor is conquest by an International Military force a likely event. No nation has successfully expanded it's territory through military conquest since China's seizure of Tibet in 1957. Few nations have successfully recovered territories that have proclaimed independence.

There are, as you have noted, several conspiracies promoting a One World Government. But success would require a level of competence I have yet to see demonstrated by Business or Government.

The opportunity for a takeover just isn't there.

We may see more international conflicts resolved in courtrooms than on battlefields in the future.

We may see more occasions in which alliances gang up on an aggressor.

We may even see a single world currency again. (We used to have one, it was called "gold.")

But we will not see the human race under a single flag until we find someone other than each other to fight.

Return to index