Was the United States of America set up to be "The New World Order" with all of the relevant symbols enshrined in it's scared doctrines and even it's money.
Europe, the old world. The USA, the New World. One created the other in a whirl of smoke, through cannon fire, famine, immigration and combined planning. Through doing so, they set up a new Order and a new from of statehood. A new order in the new world. The signs of the new world order grace the pages of US history and continue to be controversial. Yet, why do people think it is something yet to come?
Europe has always been a world divided in itself and many attempts to unite her have ended in vein. The European Union now has a similar GDP to that of the US, and a similar population, meaning as entities, the US and EU are similar in purchasing power. The standing armies of the countries of the EU have also reached 1.55 million strong, larger than that of the United States. Now that the European Union is closer to succeeding in uniting Europe, we have the US and the EU who are Western allies, but back in the day we had dozens of countries/ states split up across Europe with no Union and it was the dream of the ruling class to recreate this on another continent as to do so in Europe seemed impossible. Through their vision they could create and Unite these States under one flag, one language, one currency and to make them a single entity. And in doing so, they could create a New World. One world of 50 states, united in peace and prosperity, where the states could coexist and cease the fight for supremacy among each other. Instead of wasting resources on fighting, they could turn to the world stage where they could dominate in culture, financially and militarily.
The USA is the New World Order? Discuss.
Great topic by the way. Endless discussion.
I see the world differently. Is the U.S. the new world order? Maybe not. But we might be the only game in town right now. I think it's great if we are the new world order.
I would never compare the EU or any individual nation to the U.S. We are the most diverse democracy in the world and becoming even more so in the coming years. But we do have a single culture, that for the most part, people aspire to. Europe aspires to be very diverse but is tied to old customs (i.e. Eastern Europe) and many of its nations are still very homogenous (racially and culturally).
The Europeans lack real power. They have influence, but lack a will to implement real change in the world for the better. There would be no NATO without the U.S. I would take the 82nd Airborne over the entire European military. They contributed to Afghanistan (Britain in Iraq as well) and lost a lot of personnel (Germany, UK in particular). But in terms of a real threat such as we are seeing in Russia, they are ineffective. Unfortunately, you can't create a lasting peace in this world without the threat of effective force. Sad fact.
I would also argue that the Euro has hurt many nations (Ireland, Iceland and Greece). Economically, I don't see Europe as being a more lucrative market than the U.S. and can't see that ever happening.
Don't mean to sound grim, but I see Europe fracturing more than I see them uniting further.
See my response below (I'm not sure why it appeared at the bottom. I would also like to point out that the Euro did not "hurt" Greece. A massive deficit caused their economy to collapse. This was also a result of them trying to "catch up" with western EU nations which raised there debt further. Banking issues and Banks that outweighed the power of Ireland and Iceland, as small nations with huge GDP out of proportions to their populations, are what caused the economic trouble in Ireland and Iceland both of which have since recovered. Let me also point out that iceland is NOT a part of the EU and does not use the Euro. Their banks were available to all the people/businesses of Europe and when they collapses these small nations had to take the hit. This has resulted in banking reform that will further unite EU nations and in future, the ECB will cover bank collapses. Greece has not recovered and is a separate issue. It cannot be compared to Western EU nations like Ireland as it's much poorer, has a lower HDI, much lower wage and is like Louisiana to Wisconsin.
"The New World Order" is the name of a specific thing, including a world government. So no, the US is not that.
"The New World Order" has become that specific "thing". Originally the founders of the US included these symbols in US literature and even the dollar bill, it could be argued, to show their efforts to create the new world order, i.e a New form of nation where countries were states and where they were combined by a federal government under a new form of control. You cannot say "NO" when you don't truly seem to understand where the phrase came from and are stating "is the name of a specific thing, including a world government" when that in itself is just a theory made up by modern conspiracy theorists, especially when the US was referred to as "The New World" by Europeans.
Saying "No" when your points make no sense is moot. My theory covers most if not all angles on the origin of the term, why the symbols are included in US history and why no other nations obsess over this phrase. It's simply a US "thing" about the US/ The New World.
It is a name for a set of beliefs, ones I am quite familiar with and referring to as a "thing" colloquially. And the US is not "the NWO".
If you just mean "very important now" that is another thing entirely. I guess they are, until it is China's turn again.
Yet the US was originally tagged the New world? And the new order set up in the new world was the US which has all the symbols attached to it from the time of the order being set up?
NWO is a belief system held worldwide, about a world conspiracy. You just happen to be giving US examples.
Please read my original comment. I am stating that the US was built on NWO belief system and subsequently, that belief system has sprung off many conspiracy theories based on US literate, the dollar bill, monument etc etc. It is a valid theory and I am yet to hear a valid point based on evidence to disprove it. Your view that NWO is a belief system works alongside my theory. Your comment that I am using the US as an example, well that's exactly my point.
I'm not sure why people can't put 2 + 2 together here. The WHOLE world couldn't be ruled as one, as the rich countries need to get their cheap stuff from somewhere. Therefore, YES, the European aristocrats set up the US as their new world order. It is right on front of our faces.
The US constantly undermines world government efforts (e.g. not signing up to practically every important international treaty from arms to global warming) so if it is trying to make a one world government, well, it sucks at it?
If you mean the symbolism conspiracy theories go on about, historians know where they come from and why. Some are coincidences and others come from many of the founders being freemasons. But freemasonry is no longer associated with important leaders at the federal level, and is no longer even secretive--their meetings are openly filmed.
So perhaps you could suggest what you think is evidence for the US doing anything NWO-y at all. then I would know what you want evidence about?
Please read my above comment. I added to it. I'm not sure what it is you don't understand here. The NWO is not a Whole earth, one earth order. It never was and I am stating my theory. You believe it is. That belief is a conspiracy. My theory is based on facts.
It is in the past, it has happened. It is no longer, as you said. You keep agreeing with me and then asking how the US does anything "NWO-y". If they are the NWO, then that's that. Why would they want to invite someone else in? I am literally stating that they ARE the NWO. I think you are speaking in future tense, but as I stated in my forum heading, my theory is based around the past, that it already happened, that we are living it, and that's that. You're not really contradicting me so much as stating a conspiracy theory and stating that the NWO is yet to happen when I say we are living it.
It's in the title - A NEW WORLD (=THE USA) ORDER (= the new form of order the Europeans set up in the US based upon their desired framework.
If you are redefining the "NWO" against every single existing definition to mean "USA", well that is an unarguable tautology. But that is not what it means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_ … _theory%29
No. I am stating that the USA WAS created as a New World Order. It is surely more valid than the conspiracy theories that are based on silliness, as can be seen on the wikipedia page you just sent me. You are literally putting a conspiracy theory against my theory here. And that's fine, but none of your arguments are based on fact.
We know that:
1. The US was dubbed the New World
2. The US was set up as a new order of government that combined number of states as one rather than having the European set up of dozens of independent countries. It was a clean slate and they choose this new order.
3. Those who set up the new world order in believed in "The New world order" philosophy and were freemasons. They were mostly European and created games, a government, sports and everything the same, but better than the European version in the hope to BE the New World of prosperity and peace that Europe could never be due to cultural differences between the states.
4. The US was set up under all of the NWO guidelines
5. Nowhere in any credible document does it state that the NWO as it was originally planned, encompassed the entire planet and all freemasons, Illuminati and NWO original believers (not conspiracy theorists who came about after the foundation of the US) believe that a lower class is needed to provide for and work for their class. To do this, you need another "World" outside of the NWO.
6. The USA is scattered with NWO symbolism that was purposefully included from the times of it's foundation. These are not for the future. They are symbols of the success of the New World, past tense. How it WAS set up.
In response to Lions44: Most Eastern European nations are not part of the EU. Let's not confuse geography with political Unions here. In reality, and respectfully, I see your argument as biased. The EU (not every European nation) already has a larger economy than the USA. If you put the 50 states beside the EU states, there are many similarities. They are their own market also. Some would also argue that they see the States of the US fracturing further contrary to your statement about the EU. And in reality, the conflict in Ukraine has about as much to do with the US as it does the EU seeing as the closest EU member is as far away from Russia as Alaska (the closest US member) is. Ukraine has as much relevance to the EU as Mexico has to the US. The US really dropped the ball on that one
I admit to the bias. Can't deny that. Most of Eastern Europe is in the EU. Poland, Czech Rep., the Baltic States, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, and Hungary. That just about covers most of it.
But I think you're argument about the future fracturing of the individual U.S. states, might not be wrong. Now that I think about it. Hawaii? The Southwest. I hope not. That would be a shame. Racial and ethnic politics trump common sense sometimes.
In an ideal world, the old world (EU) and the new (US)would work together to prosper. All the names above are new members. As the US added new members who were initially poor, until they were pumped with $ that caused a great depression, from which they emerged stronger. Sound familiar?
Europe used to be more split and splits in language, culture and other things are what causes the differences between the US and EU. The EU is working to bridge the gap. The US, unfortunately seems to be going the wrong way. More languages, more racism, larger gaps Very interesting. More languages? Fine, but it hurts the "nation" and morale. Heck, look at ancient Ireland even. Went through a golden age thousands of years ago when the languages were combined and the kingdoms united. Fell to pieces finally in 1800 with the act of union, when their were divisions. 1916, united, once again golden age begins. 1970's to 1980's golden age intensifies becoming one of the richest countries in the world. 2008, conflicting factions in the form of class-ism and influx of eastern Europeans causes cultural divides. Economy collapses. 2014, economy once again thriving due to unity, integration of foreigners.
The more I think about it, the more I wonder if it was all planned. You know? The New World. Makes sense when you think about it. There was cultural division but no borders to split the people up. If anything, the EU will bring there Union closer to what the US is. I can only hope the US takes a turn for the better soon. The world needs the US ($16 trillion) and EU ($16 trillion). And when I say the world, I mean our world i.e the EU and US.
Hi cfin! Thanks for introducing this topic.
I want to start out by saying: You asked for a discussion. Telling people immediately that their ideas are based on silliness and without fact is not an attitude most conducive to discussion, without telling them why you think it is silly. If someone has taken the time to give you info on a different definition of a NWO, then at least explain why you think it's fallacious (i.e. the wikipedia article given.)
Before you reply to this (or if you do) please understand that I'm familiar with the NWO theory you promote and quite frankly, I believe it and have for several years.
However i want to discuss with you some points you listed off as fact, which I think does not logically support your conclusiion. You said that "we know that" the following:
1. The US was dubbed the New World
This hardly gives evidence of being a new world order. It means that it was a world that was discovered and it was new.
"2. The US was set up as a new order of government that combined number of states as one rather than having the European set up of dozens of independent countries. It was a clean slate and they choose this new order."
The statement that it was a new order of government that combined a number of states is true. It was a clean slate and they did choose this new order of government. A nod perhaps to the ideas of a NWO, that I will agree.
"3. Those who set up the new world order in believed in "The New world order" philosophy and were freemasons. They were mostly European and created games, a government, sports and everything the same, but better than the European version in the hope to BE the New World of prosperity and peace that Europe could never be due to cultural differences between the states."
I agree, alot of them were freemasons, which is the founder of the NWO ideas. (Now the emphasis has shifted to Illuminati, etc.) This can be found in actual texts and quotes stating that they were freemasons. That is a good fact. However, the fact that they were trying to be better than the Old Country does not necessarily indicate that they are wanting to be the NWO with the definition you provided. Everyone wants to improve their old ways of life.
"4. The US was set up under all of the NWO guidelines"
What guidelines specifically? As relating to what? Sorry I didn't want to just assume what you meant and reply.
"5. Nowhere in any credible document does it state that the NWO as it was originally planned, encompassed the entire planet and all freemasons, Illuminati and NWO original believers (not conspiracy theorists who came about after the foundation of the US) believe that a lower class is needed to provide for and work for their class. To do this, you need another "World" outside of the NWO."
And yet people believe they are credible. You might want to elaborate on why they are not credible. I saw that you mentioned someone's wikipedia article (and trust me, I HATE wikipedia) as silly. If they thought so, they would not make a fool of themselves and provide it. Please elaborate on why it was not correct or not credible.
The fact that the NWO requires that there be a lower, outside class, is circular reasoning if you are attempting to use it as evidence that it cannot be the whole world. That's basically saying, "based on my theory of what NWO is, your definition is incorrect. Therefore you being incorrect proves that I'm correct, based on my own definition to begin with."
"6. The USA is scattered with NWO symbolism that was purposefully included from the times of it's foundation. These are not for the future. They are symbols of the success of the New World, past tense. How it WAS set up."
Saying that it was purposefully included is simply re-stating your opinion. that is not a fact. The only fact given here is that there are a lot of symbols that the NWO uses in the US. "The USA is scattered with NWO symbolism....." Yes that is true. That does not, however, mean that it is intentional or that they are provided by the NWO (which you stated next.) It means that it's a symbol and the NWO uses it. If the idea behind your statement is that these symbols are exclusive to the NWO ideals, then there is a lot of explaining to do because a TON of other organizations not related to the NWO DIRECTLY (including from other countries) use these same symbols. People do borrow symbols and pictures, even if they have no idea what they're for. For example, if I look on a box of cigarettes and I See a NWO symbol, does that mean it's part of the NWO network. It may mean it's a popular symbol and it looked good. That does come into play.
I want to close with this. I agree with your ideas (for my own reasons and based on my own research) but the evidence you provided (and its inherent logic,) is lacking.. All these observations as a whole (e.g. NWO symbols everywhere, the name of the US, etc.) might give us something to think about, but even then it requires explanation. I hope this is viewed in a good-hearted manner. I enjoy discussing topics and I am attempting to give logical explanations as to why the observations you presented cannot be properly viewed as evidence for your ideas. It does not change the fact that I agree with your idea. Thanks for taking the time to read this ridiculously long post.
1. I find conspiracy theories to be silly. They are not facts. That is all.
2. I responded this way only after the other discussing member stated "NO" and that I was wrong. I however stated that they are entitled to their opinion, but they cannot refute my theory or say it is 100% incorrect by stating opinions or conspiracy theories.
3. They consistently tried to shut me down by stressing points that are relevant to beliefs that came about after the fact when I was referring to the past and the foundation of the US.
"Telling people immediately that their ideas are based on silliness and without fact is not an attitude most conducive to discussion, without telling them why you think it is silly."?
They made no attempt to understand or read my discussion and then expected me to respect their conspiracy theories that sprung up after the part of history that I am discussing. They instead stated "The New World Order" is the name of a specific thing, including a world government. So no, the US is not that." as if I am a fool and I should be simply told no. When in fact what they said is FALSE. The belief that the new world order is a world government is quite a recent belief that has arisen from the very events I am discussing, thus it their statement is false.
I was then polite enough to answer their questions numerous times and they kept repeating themselves numerous times, literally telling me I am wrong, 100% wrong. At that point, it ceases to be an impartial discussion and becomes an exercise in futility. I hardly think I spoke rudely as a result. I came for a chat, not for a fanatic to badger me with their "new" new world order conspiracies over and over when I made clear that I was discussing the foundation of the US.
The founders of the US were mostly freemasons or aristocrats and it is documented that they acted in the interests of their organizational beliefs. Not something that we could really discuss openly, or within a short amount of time, but interesting don't you think?
I just want to point out that this was my opinion and just a theory. I am not a historian or philosopher and I am just making conversation. I do believe, impartially, that my argument is as valid if not more so, than any of the "conspiracies" on wikipedia I also have done NO (yes NO) research on this and have just worked from memory, as I do, which rarely lets me down. I have studied relevant topics extensively in the past(particularly jurisprudence) and I kind of never thought of it before. It came to me when people at work were blabbing about "the new world order". To me it seems like common knowledge and I was simply baffled to find that no one has ever written it down. Just as Christopher Colon (Columbus?) was a rapist pirate, but of course, he is a hero?
RE: the purposeful inclusion of Illuminati or NWO symbols, I doubt the dollar bill just ended up looking like that by accident But yes, you are entitled to state that it was a coincidence. My statement of fact relies on the term "the things speaks for itself".
And, if I might add, I do not have any interest in or affiliation with any relevant organization nor do I have an interest in my theory being successful. I would quite prefer if someone could disprove it. I simply thought it made for a good discussion. If someone can come in and discuss, as you did, the relevant topic about the new world, new world order and how the term was used back then, I would greatly appreciate that. Not to state "No because No because No, because *insert false statement here about the NWO having to encompass the whole world because I said so* because No you're wrong".
Yes, I understand.
1. I find conspiracy theories to be silly. They are not fact.
No theory is a fact. That's why they presented it. You requested a discussion and asked "is the NWO the US" and they provided you with an alternate theory. I'm not sure if I'm missing something but I thought you were wanting a discussion of theories. They obviously did not (for whatever reason) think that it was silly. They even seemed to have a distaste for them, if my deductions from this comment are correct: "If you mean the symbolism conspiracy theories go on about, historians know where they come from and why." They disagree that the symbolism aspect of your theory is valid.
2. "I responded this way only after the other discussing member stated "NO" and that I was wrong. I however stated that they are entitled to their opinion, but they cannot refute my theory or say it is 100% incorrect by stating opinions or conspiracy theories."
Yes, but you presented your own as such: "I just want to point out that this was my opinion and just a theory." You are presenting an opinion and a theory, based on what you believe to be irrefutable fact. They presented their opinion and theory, based on what they considered to be irrefutable fact. I just reread the discussion (just to be sure I didn't skip over something, chances are I did!) and I see where you're coming from. The first two paragraphs did seem to be simply a "Nope. You're wrong. But after that the discussion got [slightly] more informed [the (gag) wikipedia article.] So I do see what you meant there However, my overall statement still stands, that if someone states that they believe the NWO is not the US based on the fact that they believe it consists of the whole world, isn't that what you were asking for? People to present their findings? Likely, this person sees your view as opinion and a conspiracy theory. (In fact, they almost directly did, about the symbolism.) Therefore it turns into a "no you're wrong, that's not proven." --"No YOU'RE wrong, that's not proven!" It really just depends on whether or not each person agrees with the criteria for proof of their theory. You both obviously didn't. I think it would be beneficial to explain why you don't think their view has any valid points? Simply calling it a conspiracy theory is the same as saying "No, you're wrong" without giving any facts, the same thing you said he/she did. Also, I always believe it is on the burden of the one offering a theory to provide evidence for their theory (which you did provide.) Geez that was long. Forgive my wordiness. Okayyy on to number three:
3."They consistently tried to shut me down by stressing points that are relevant to beliefs that came about after the fact when I was referring to the past and the foundation of the US."
True. I understand where you're coming from there.
Conspiracy theories and theories are very different. I went out there because I can't disprove this myself. Someone flying in with theories that CAN be disproved that are quite irrelevant is just annoying
And no, I was referring to the New world order beliefs of the time, not some "new" thing that stems from conspiracies that are only out there because of things like the dollar bill which were created as a result of what I am describing. Get me?. At that time, the whole world had not been discovered, and the New world order was non existent. It only came into being in relation to the New World. How then, could someone claim that the NWO applies to the entire world as we now know it, when that world didn't exist during the time frame I am referencing? Interesting, right? At the time, Europeans knew little of the rest of the world and despised the east, For them, the entire world, or "New world" was to the west. This point alone shatters the belief of these "New" NWO believers that it is some kind of ancient code. In all seriousness, the NWO cannot mean the entire planet as a result. Surely? Thus, no valid points.
Planet as we know it didn't exist in the times I am speaking of = New world order doesn't or couldn't possibly equal whole planet. Just as if we discover A new alien species on Mars, and we move to mars, we cannot, in 500 years look at history and say "The dollar bill was referring to Mars too because they are in our world. The Chinese are trying to take over Mars", because that would be insane, just as when I am referring to the the europeans at the time, and asking if they created the new world as the NWO and that might be where the term comes from, it sounds insane for someone to say, "The term refers to now. The $1 refers to now and future plans", when really the $1 was just a monument to the beliefs at the time ( which as I am questioning were probably more so about the new world and making it the best not some kind of global domination in the future). As was the Illuminati symbols on almost all law schools.
Ahh I understand more clearly now. Thanks for the explanation. Not sure if I agree or not, will have to do more research about it, but thanks for elaborating and I'll get back with you on that
"Conspiracy theories and theories are very different. I went out there because I can't disprove this myself. Someone flying in with theories that CAN be disproved that are quite irrelevant is just annoying"
You think they can be disproved. Someone else comes along and thinks your theory can be disproved as well. Therefore, I still hold you're on level ground.
Just my one cent.
Ok I'm done now.
I think I'll leave it as is. It seems to be a term that is taken so far out of context that it makes no sense anymore
Been doing a great amount of reflecting on life experiences lately. In particular how much time is left and what we are going to leave behind for the inheritors of our planet. Growing up in the 1950's - 60's was a good time to be around, we had everything to live for. Families were the focal point then we had the introduction of television which was initially quaint and nieve but it brought the world right into our living room. Drive in movies, 10 pin bowling, household waste removed each week in one small barrell. Everybody trusted each other in our community,so what is the outlook for homo sapiens now?
Bleak Limper, Bleak. Growing up in Ireland, life was beautiful. Yet as the years passed, money took over. The countries rise to glory as 2007's world richest came as quickly as the burst. A sudden spiral brought on by the greed of bankers, and left a country grieving their $110 billion loss, left on the tax payer. Yet all the hit succeeded in doing was to cut some cash from the pockets of the poor. Childhoods did not return, nor did the family dinners of the 70's and 80'.
The technology though, is now firmly in the hands of every 6 year old. The country is forever changed. I've been around the world and I've never seen anything like the amount of technology in Ireland these days and the resources and cash spent on it. Unemployed with iphones, crying about their benefits being cut a little. Kids collecting video game consoles and not just games, let alone sports cards as I did at 7. They make no eye contact, instead choosing to text you from across the room.
by SparklingJewel5 years ago
...there's this thing called sovereignty, individual and national, that some don't seem to appreciate. Maybe its because they don't understand their own degree of brainwashing that they have accepted.I don't claim that...
by Dennis Pace6 years ago
I have been interested in this topic for some time, and recently decided to write articles about it. However, as part of my research I would like to know your opinions. What will life be like? How do...
by aka-dj7 years ago
Here is a 4 min video. You (we) are about to give up our freedom(s).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40What do you think?
by rhamson2 years ago
Because the American voter just doesn't get it. It does not matter which sibling or spouse you vote for the elite remain in charge. They are paid by the same people to do their bidding. The American voters are duped and...
by Specialkizza7 years ago
I ask this question to all readers and myself. I ask that everyone who frequents this topic to please reply. Feel free to elaborate and converse. Thank You. Its both for me. I can't remember when I felt more passionate...
by onthewriteside7 years ago
We have the USSR which, even in its current tattered form, is still pretty much a union. We have the European Union. Some might argue that the OPEC nations might be considered a union. And now there is...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.