This article is intended to help orient you to current realities. Laying out the entire history and philosophy of the New World Order, and following all the possibly relevant side-topics, would distract you. As part of the “no rabbit holes policy” on this website, this article is intentionally brief and high-level.
For the rabbit-hole version, which has some relevant details but also some completely irrelevant red-herrings designed to “poison the well”, see Wikipedia’s version.
Conquest from within by deception
The New World Order was supposed to be a global empire that was “enlightened” in some sense. Past and present promises have included workers’ paradise (19th & early 20th centuries), world peace (the “one world or none” movement after World War 2), and smart cities surrounded by pristine natural environments (contemporary as of this writing). The promises appear to be nothing more than pretexts, not goals in themselves.
At its peak in the early 20th century, the British Empire ruled roughly ¼ of the world's land surface and population. Since then, a shadow empire has replaced it, wherein nations retain their flags and the nominal appearance of national sovereignty, but any government that doesn't cooperate with the agents of the New World Order is replaced through regime change operations, popularly known as "color revolutions". The shadow empire currently constitutes roughly the entire habitable planet, minus a few rival imperial powers such as Russia and China, and a few of their client states such as Iran, Syria, and Venezuela.
To the extent that it’s been partially realized at all, it’s unique in human history for being forged not out of direct military conquest, but through deception and relatively non-violent takeover of system control points from within existing systems, starting with finance and expanding from there. Certainly wars have been fought on its behalf, but that was after national governments were infiltrated and effectively taken over. Nobody thought to resist because the takeover of economic control points (starting with the underwriting of national debt) was assumed to be benign due to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” fallacy.
The conspirators attempting to bring it about were primarily British Imperial operatives and their investment-banking partners.
Since the conspiracy has been a secret since its inception, its history is poorly-documented. We know that some of its key milestones, such as the founding of the US Federal Reserve, happened over a century ago. Some related historical events happened over a century before that. It is naive to believe (as many apparently do) that such a huge, long-lived, slowly-but-surely unfolding plan can be easily stopped or for that matter, rolled back.
Socialist, Communist, or Liberal?
Global empire has always been the primary goal; how to organize and run it seems to have been left ambiguous or undecided, perhaps intentionally so.
Its British imperial proponents such as the Fabians have tended to assume that it would be run as a Democratic Socialist system. The specific flavor of socialism they had in mind was something along the lines some parts of the Commonwealth of Nations were headed in the 1950s: state ownership of core industries and services (transportation, communcations, healthcare), private property tolerated, but eroding due to creeping accumulation of property by the government. Eventually, the government would have ended up owning everything, but also nothing: it’s worth noting that by 1976, the United Kingdom was bankrupt and had to apply to the IMF for debt relief.
The investment bankers who handled financial matters of the British Empire and who also sponsored the Bolshevik revolution in Russia seem to have decided that the ideal system would be Trotskyite communist, although precisely what that in turn means seems to be another unresolved point of contention. In actual practice, it seems to mean a 2-class system consisting of oligarchs and their proletarian livestock who’ve been brainwashed into believing they live in workers’ paradise. De facto property ownership exists for the oligarchal class, but not for the workers. Small business owners, certain types of professionals and intellectuals, and “Kulaks” (a murky and fluid term whose meaning kept evolving, but for all intents and purposes refers to peasants who acquired property) targeted for elimination simply for failing to fit into the strict 2-class scheme. In the Soviet Union, there were waves of executions of intellectuals, engineers, foremen, managers, and the like, typically for “sabotage” (they couldn’t make their boss’s hairbrained schemes work), while “kulaks” were systematically rounded up and liquidated in the GULAGs.
The process of taking away property from peasants is known as "dekulakization".
In the 1950s, David Rockefeller seems to have toyed with the idea of running the New World Order as a “Liberal” society, with his sponsorship of Friedrich von Hayek. “Liberal” in this sense means an order founded on the principles of:
- Property
- Personal freedom
- Peace
One of the slogans of the Great Reset is “You will own nothing”. Given their current unfolding schemes to bankrupt most of it it looks like they mean it, and given their intention to impose global IDs and internal passports on us, it certainly looks like the idea of running the New World Order as a Liberal society has been abandoned.
A different, and not necessarily incompatible, way of seeing the situation is not so much one of competing ideological factions, but of different needs relative to context and stage of execution of planning:
The sponsors of the New World Order promote
- relative laissez-faire capitalism whenever they have a need for expanding the economy
- socialism when they want to consolidate power
We’re now in a power-consolidation phase, hence the rise of socialism. Indeed, in order to conserve depleting natural resources such as petroleum, we're currently in a phase of "degrowth".