What is the New World Order? (Don't discuss the WTC)

exchemist said:
I'm clearly missing something that is plain to you two. I read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics)

and formed the impression it was just a label used by various statesmen and politicians at certain points in history when changes are occurring. Where do you get all this control stuff from?
Click to expand...

Eyes, ears and brain open, assume nothing, question everything, get the answers.

Wiki is really not the best source for researching anything.

Most of the best information is hidden in plain sight - for instance : why do they call television shows "programs" or "programming"?
 
dumbest man on earth said:
Eyes, ears and brain open, assume nothing, question everything, get the answers.

Wiki is really not the best source for researching anything.

Most of the best information is hidden in plain sight - for instance : why do they call television shows "programs" or "programming"?
Click to expand...

Sure. But, specifically in relation to "New World Order", do you have any evidence you can cite that this denotes some kind of exercise or project to control people?
 
exchemist said:
I'm clearly missing something that is plain to you two. I read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics)

and formed the impression it was just a label used by various statesmen and politicians at certain points in history when changes are occurring. Where do you get all this control stuff from?
Click to expand...

The views of these people are far from what you might expect.
Going back to Ullman's article, he says this:

In simple terms, al-Qaida is symptomatic of far greater changes in the structure of the international system. The major enemy and adversary are no longer states bent on disrupting or dominating the system despite those who see China as a future foe.

Instead, the more immediate danger rests in the dramatic empowerment of individuals and groups, for good and sadly evil, often lumped together as "non-state actors."
Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, countless "hackers" and anonymous people mailing anthrax-filled letters whose actions have indeed constituted real threats and systemic disruptions are among the former. Al-Qaida and other radical groups reflect the latter.
In essence, the 365 year-old Westphalian system that placed sovereign states as the centerpieces of international politics is being tested and in some cases made obsolete by the empowerment of individuals and non-state actors. As former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft observes, global politics has entered a post-Westphalian era. But very few have taken note and fewer have acted on this realization.
The fundamental cause of this empowerment is the diffusion of all forms of power writ large commonly called "globalization," accelerated by the information revolution and instantaneous global communications and the real and perceived fragilities and weaknesses of states to intervention, interference and disruption by non-traditional actors.
September 11th could become the demarcation point of this new era much as 1648 and the Treaty of Westphalia marked the beginning of the state-centric system of the international order.
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/war-on-terror-is-not-the-only-threat

It may sound weird for someone to be talking about protecting a world system that dates back to a 17th century treaty.
People like Edward Snowden are now seen as an equal threat, along with Al Qaida, to this system.
I'm not claiming that these ideas are any more sane than those held by the conspiracy theorists,
just that they are held by people in power and people with influence over those in power.
It isn't just the conspiracy theorists that see a new departure since 9/11.

Check up on Ullman, and the influence he and people like him have had.
They are not disregarded kooks, though perhaps they should be.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
The views of these people are far from what you might expect.
Going back to Ullman's article, he says this:

In simple terms, al-Qaida is symptomatic of far greater changes in the structure of the international system. The major enemy and adversary are no longer states bent on disrupting or dominating the system despite those who see China as a future foe.

Instead, the more immediate danger rests in the dramatic empowerment of individuals and groups, for good and sadly evil, often lumped together as "non-state actors."
Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, countless "hackers" and anonymous people mailing anthrax-filled letters whose actions have indeed constituted real threats and systemic disruptions are among the former. Al-Qaida and other radical groups reflect the latter.
In essence, the 365 year-old Westphalian system that placed sovereign states as the centerpieces of international politics is being tested and in some cases made obsolete by the empowerment of individuals and non-state actors. As former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft observes, global politics has entered a post-Westphalian era. But very few have taken note and fewer have acted on this realization.
The fundamental cause of this empowerment is the diffusion of all forms of power writ large commonly called "globalization," accelerated by the information revolution and instantaneous global communications and the real and perceived fragilities and weaknesses of states to intervention, interference and disruption by non-traditional actors.
September 11th could become the demarcation point of this new era much as 1648 and the Treaty of Westphalia marked the beginning of the state-centric system of the international order.
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/war-on-terror-is-not-the-only-threat

It may sound weird for someone to be talking about protecting a world system that dates back to a 17th century treaty.
People like Edward Snowden are now seen as an equal threat, along with Al Qaida, to this system.
I'm not claiming that these ideas are any more sane than those held by the conspiracy theorists,
just that they are held by people in power and people with influence over those in power.
It isn't just the conspiracy theorists that see a new departure since 9/11.

Check up on Ullman, and the influence he and people like him have had.
They are not disregarded kooks, though perhaps they should be.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I don't see what he is saying as necessarily sinister. He's pointing out that globalisation and IT communications enable his "non-state actors" to acquire certain sorts of power, which can be used for good or ill. And he's concerned about the "ill" part. It reads a bit like at attempt to generalise out from modern Muslim terrorism to a new type of security threat that governments will struggle to deal with. I think most of us recognise that providing a safe environment for its citizens is one of the core jobs of governments, so it seems fair enough to point out the challenge they may face.

I suppose where I might part company with this guy is I tend to see the control of terrorism as basically police work, rather than any kind of existential threat that would justify terminology such as "war on terror". In fact I've always thought that idea was imbecilic, from the moment Bush the Younger first uttered it. I don't know Ullman. From the name, I would not be surprised to find he is part of the (largely Jewish) neocon clique in the US and I certainly have little time for the mixture of aggression, arrogance and paranoia that they deal in. But I fail to see any of this article as suggesting there is a project called a New World Order that aims to control people in some sinister way.
 
Neocon, exactly right.
Ullman was jointly responsible for formulating the "Shock and Awe" tactics in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe

Ullman does use the words "New World Order", but from my reading of his article I'm not sure whether he sees it as something to be desired,
or the opposite, or just a fact of life:
Beyond this inflection point in international politics, still unabsorbed and misunderstood by most governments and people, a second reality complicates taking effective action in what could truly be a "new world order," the description coined by U.S. President George H.W. Bush after the implosion of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago.


In any case, the right of the US and its allies to protect a historic world "system" that dates back to an ancient treaty is a given.
This seems to me at least as wacky as the conspiracy nuts. Dubya hired him as an advisor. That fits.

The Atlantic Group, of which Ullman is a member, is amazingly influential.
His strange opinions may well not be representative of the whole organization.

In February 2009, James L. Jones, then-chairman of the Atlantic Council, stepped down in order to serve as President Obama's new National Security Advisor and was succeeded by Senator Chuck Hagel. In addition, Council members Susan Rice left to serve as the administration's ambassador to the UN, Richard Holbrooke became the Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, General Eric K. Shinseki became the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and Anne-Marie Slaughter became Director of Policy Planning at the State Department. Senator Chuck Hagel stepped down in 2013 to serve as US Secretary of Defense. Gen. Brent Scowcroft now serves as interim chairman of the organization's Board of Directors while a search for his successor is under way. In January 2014, it was announced that the post would assumed by former Governor of Utah Jon Huntsman, Jr..
The Atlantic Council has earned praise from across the international community, with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen calling the Council a "pre-eminent think tank" with a "longstanding reputation",[5] and former U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) noting that the Council is "held in high esteem within the Atlantic community".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council
 
Last edited:
This is a speech made in 2012 by James L Jones, who was Obama's National security adviser from January 20, 2009 – October 8, 2010
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/news...tional-security-priorities-for-next-president

He also mentions a "New World Order". It does seem to be a term that is in common use by the military.
I hear many at home and abroad define the emerging new world order with fear and trepidation. They see in it the imminence and inevitability of “American decline.”

He seems to mean by it, the change in world power structures, whether for good or ill.
Conspiracists interpret references to the NWO as a desire for world domination.
 
He uses the words, as does James L Jones, but I think they mean a world in which the old power structures have changed.
That may involve new opportunities for the US to direct World affairs and protect their interests,
but world domination is not an objective. Not a stated one anyway.

The conspiracy theorists think that the NWO is a plan by which they intend to control everyone.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
Neocon, exactly right.
Ullman was jointly responsible for formulating the "Shock and Awe" tactics in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe

Ullman does use the words "New World Order", but from my reading of his article I'm not sure whether he sees it as something to be desired,
or the opposite, or just a fact of life:
Beyond this inflection point in international politics, still unabsorbed and misunderstood by most governments and people, a second reality complicates taking effective action in what could truly be a "new world order," the description coined by U.S. President George H.W. Bush after the implosion of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago.


In any case, the right of the US and its allies to protect a historic world "system" that dates back to an ancient treaty is a given.
This seems to me at least as wacky as the conspiracy nuts. Dubya hired him as an advisor. That fits.

The Atlantic Group, of which Ullman is a member, is amazingly influential.
His strange opinions may well not be representative of the whole organization.

In February 2009, James L. Jones, then-chairman of the Atlantic Council, stepped down in order to serve as President Obama's new National Security Advisor and was succeeded by Senator Chuck Hagel. In addition, Council members Susan Rice left to serve as the administration's ambassador to the UN, Richard Holbrooke became the Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, General Eric K. Shinseki became the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and Anne-Marie Slaughter became Director of Policy Planning at the State Department. Senator Chuck Hagel stepped down in 2013 to serve as US Secretary of Defense. Gen. Brent Scowcroft now serves as interim chairman of the organization's Board of Directors while a search for his successor is under way. In January 2014, it was announced that the post would assumed by former Governor of Utah Jon Huntsman, Jr..
The Atlantic Council has earned praise from across the international community, with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen calling the Council a "pre-eminent think tank" with a "longstanding reputation",[5] and former U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) noting that the Council is "held in high esteem within the Atlantic community".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council
Click to expand...

Well, Ullmann does not appear on my usual neocon list, here: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profiles/category/individuals

He seems to be some sort of academic defence geek, after an implied, though not specified, career in the military:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_K._Ullman

If he was a naval officer it is odd his rank is not mentioned. I also note this Wiki entry refers to him as a "former naval person", which is how Churchill used to refer to himself in correspondence with Roosevelt during W II. A bit cheeky, that.

But I've also found this, which gives more details on the man:http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Harlan_K._Ullman

So an ex-naval lieutenant commander, who taught Colin Powell, who evidently respected his intellect. He's a military man, then, and I'm sure his view of the world is from a military perspective. I note, though, that he acknowledges that the US overreacted after 9/11 and the Snowden leaks. I also note he ONLY refers to new world order in lower case, as a quotation from Bush the Elder in 1990, at a time when the "End of History" theory was mainstream.

So on this showing, I do not see him as necessarily a neocon. Still less do I see him as advocating any sort of project to control people, whether under the title "New World Order" or anything else.

As for his rumination on the Westphalian system, anyone who has read a bit of history will be aware that the Treaty of Westphalia is well known as putting in place the system of respect for nation states and their governments that has been the basis of foreign relations ever since: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia

So all he's doing is saying the ingrained and implicit assumption we all have, that foreign relations are about issues between sovereign states and the governments, may become out of date - and that poses a new problem for how foreign affairs are to be handled in future. Seems a very reasonable point, to me.
 
Last edited:
Captain Kremmen said:
He uses the words, as does James L Jones, but I think they mean a world in which the old power structures have changed.
That may involve new opportunities for the US to direct World affairs and protect their interests,
but world domination is not an objective. Not a stated one anyway.

The conspiracy theorists think that the NWO is a plan by which they intend to control everyone.
Click to expand...

Again, Jones uses the phrase only in lower case and in the context of some people's fear for the future (US decline, rise of China, multinational terrorism etc., etc.)

Both James and Ullman in fact seem to me to use the phrase with a sense of irony (rare in the US, we are told), in that Bush Senior used it in a sort of "sunlit uplands" feel-good sense, about the "peace dividend" when the Russian communist empire collapsed, but here we, 20 years on, and what do we find? That the ACTUAL new world order that is emerging today is a very much more ambivalent thing, full of new threats and risks…..and so on and so on....

This is all quite innocent. Any top military person MUST devote time to thinking about - and raising awareness of - the future potential threats to the country or entity it is their job to defend.
 
The whole of "Shock and Awe" is here
http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Ullman_Shock.pdf

I'm not suggesting anyone reads all of it, but you might like to take a quick look through it.

It could be said that "Shock and Awe"was the only tactic that actually worked to plan in Iraq.
Saddam's forces did quickly capitulate, without a huge loss of life.
It was the "tactics" after Shock and Awe that caused the most trouble.


@exchemist
Why do you think that the Conspiracy people have developed their definition of NWO?
Is it some kind of religion?
 
Captain Kremmen said:
The whole of "Shock and Awe" is here
http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Ullman_Shock.pdf

I'm not suggesting anyone reads all of it, but you might like to take a quick look through it.

It could be said that "Shock and Awe"was the only tactic that actually worked to plan in Iraq.
Saddam's forces did quickly capitulate, without a huge loss of life.
It was the "tactics" after Shock and Awe that caused the most trouble.


@exchemist
Why do you think that the Conspiracy people have developed their definition of NWO?
Is it some kind of religion?
Click to expand...

Shock and Awe didn't impress me very much. Surely it's just an updated version of the German Blitzkrieg, isn't it? But given this guy's profession, I don't see anything wrong in what is in the book. Military people have the job of working out how to subdue a foe as fast as possible and in a way that leads to a good political outcome (often means minimising casualties, avoiding humiliation of the defeated population, etc etc). So I think it's fair enough.

I have no idea at all about New World Order conspiracy theorists. I did not even know there were any until you told me, and judging by the lack of interest on this thread from any nutters, there do not seem to be too many of them.

I have come across people who think the Bilderberg group is some sort of project by capitalism to subject the people of the world to their will. (Since Ed Balls goes to their meetings, I suppose there may a shred of truth to that, arf, arf.)
 
Yes the NWO order is by the Illuminati of divine knowledge. I don't know what it is more than that but if I did.
 
NYO conspiracies do exist.
Although the ferkers are a bit subdued at the moment, and won't say anything.
They won't come on here because I forbade them to talk about the World Trade Centre.
 
Last edited:
Re Shock and Awe.
The idea borrowed from Blitzkrieg and also from the bomb on Hiroshima,
but it contained a new emphasis on demoralising the enemy by a show of overwhelming power and by destroying infrastructure.
It works particularly well on the type of army that will lay down their weapons and run away if they are demoralised.

I can remember being sickened by it at the time,
but in retrospect it worked, and probably saved lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top