In case anyone is wondering where this 'New World Order'

Quote:

Before the early 1990s, New World Order conspiracism was limited to two American countercultures, primarily the militantly anti-government right and secondarily that part of fundamentalist Christianity concerned with the end-time emergence of the Antichrist.

[8] Skeptics such as Michael Barkun and Chip Berlet observed that right-wing populist conspiracy theories about a New World Order had not only been embraced by many seekers of stigmatized knowledge but had seeped into popular culture, thereby inaugurating a period during the late 20th and early 21st centuries in the United States where people were actively preparing for apocalyptic millenarian scenarios.[4][6]

Those political scientists were concerned that mass hysteria could have what they judged to be devastating effects on American political life, ranging from escalating lone-wolf terrorism to the rise to power of authoritarian alt-right demagogues.[ 4][6][9]

Huh, ya think?! LMAO!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order...cy_theory)

Criticisms

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.[6]

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.[53]

Partridge, a contributing editor to the global affairs magazine Diplomatic Courier, writes in a December 2008 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 [journalist Gideon Rachman] 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.[69]

Although some cultural critics see superconspiracy theories about a New World Order as "postmodern metanarratives" that may be politically empowering, a way of giving ordinary people a narrative structure with which to question what they see around them,[89] skeptics argue that conspiracism leads people into cynicism, convoluted thinking, and a tendency to feel it is hopeless even as they denounce the alleged conspirators.[90]

Alexander Zaitchik from the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote a report titled "'Patriot' Paranoia: A Look at the Top Ten Conspiracy Theories", in which he personally condemns such conspiracies as an effort of the radical right to undermine society.

Scholars continue to debate the psychological and sociological origins of conspiracy theories, but there is no arguing that these theories have seen a revival on the extreme right in recent years.

Over the last two decades, a far-right conspiracy culture of self-proclaimed "Patriots" has emerged in which the United States government itself is viewed as a mortal threat to everything from constitutional democracy to the survival of the human race.

This conspiracy revival — which has been accompanied by the explosive growth of Patriot groups over the last year and a half — kicked into overdrive with the 2008 election of President Barack Obama, who is seen by Patriots as a foreign-born Manchurian candidate sent by forces of the so-called "New World Order" to destroy American sovereignty and institute one-world socialist government.[1]

Concerned that the improvisational millennialism of most conspiracy theories about a New World Order might motivate lone wolves to engage in leaderless resistance leading to domestic terrorist incidents like the Oklahoma City bombing,[91] 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.[6]

Warning of the threat to American democracy posed by right-wing populist movements led by demagogues who mobilize support for mob rule or even a fascist revolution by exploiting the fear of conspiracies, Berlet writes:

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.[14]

Hughes, a professor of religion, warns that no religious idea has greater potential for shaping global politics in profoundly negative ways than "the new world order". He writes in a February 2011 article entitled Revelation, Revolutions, and the Tyrannical New World Order:

The crucial piece of this puzzle is the identity of the Antichrist, the tyrannical figure who both leads and inspires the new world order. [...] for many years, rapture theologians identified the Soviet Union as the Antichrist.

But after Sept. 11, they became quite certain that the Antichrist was closely connected with the Arab world and the Muslim religion. This means, quite simply, that for rapture theologians, Islam stands at the heart of the tyrannical "new world order." Precisely here we discover why the idea of a "new world order" has such potential to move global politics in profoundly negative directions, for rapture theologians typically welcome war with the Islamic world.

As Bill Moyers wrote of the rapture theologians, "A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed—an essential conflagration on the road to redemption."

Further, rapture theologians co-opt the United States as a tool in their cosmic vision—a tool God will use to smite the Antichrist and the enemies of righteousness. This is why Tim LaHaye, co-author of the best-selling series of end-times books, could lend such strong support to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq.

By virtue of that war, LaHaye believed, Iraq would become "a focal point of end-times events." Even more disturbing is the fact that rapture theologians blissfully open the door to nuclear holocaust.

Rapture theologians have always held that God will destroy his enemies at the end of time in the Great Battle of Armageddon. But since World War II, they have increasingly identified Armageddon with nuclear weaponry, thereby lending biblical inevitability to the prospects of nuclear annihilation. As one prophecy writer put it, "The holocaust of atomic war would fulfill the prophecies."[25]

Criticisms of New World Order conspiracy theorists also come from within their own community. Despite believing themselves to be "freedom fighters", many right-wing populist conspiracy theorists hold views that are incompatible with their professed libertarianism, such as dominionism, white supremacism, and even eliminationism.[ 14][92]

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.[6]