Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
New World Order, a plan, not a conspiracy theory.
Options
Comments
-
It's here because it sounds like a CT to install a NWO.
You keep using phrases that betray belief in some sort of tangible identifiable group..
1. As mentioned, "New World Order" or "NWO" is a phrase, not an entity or organisation that is "installed"
2. It's a subjective description. Politicians and leaders have been using the phrase to loosely describe a sea-change in geopolitics or different ideological eras/epochs
3. There isn't literally an organisation called "the Third World", "the Arab Spring" or "the New World Order" so it can't be headed by someone. Bianca Jagger, David Ike, George Soros, The Illuminati, etc are not, to the best of our knowledge, sitting at a desk, picking up the phone and saying; "New world order, how can I help you?"
4. I think I'm starting to piece this together, do you believe man-made climate change is a hoax or a conspiracy?0 -
You keep using phrases that betray belief in some sort of tangible identifiable group..
1. As mentioned, "New World Order" or "NWO" is a phrase, not an entity or organisation that is "installed"
2. It's a subjective description. Politicians and leaders have been using the phrase to loosely describe a sea-change in geopolitics or different ideological eras/epochs
3. There isn't literally an organisation called "the Third World", "the Arab Spring" or "the New World Order" so it can't be headed by someone. Bianca Jagger, David Ike, George Soros, The Illuminati, etc are not, to the best of our knowledge, sitting at a desk, picking up the phone and saying; "New world order, how can I help you?"
4. I think I'm starting to piece this together, do you believe man-made climate change is a hoax or a conspiracy?
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057828857
0 -
-
The New World Order (NWO) An Overview
http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/
To quote from this:"The United Nations, along with all the agencies working under the UN umbrella, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), are full time players in this scheme. Similarly, NATO is a military tool of the NWO.
The leaders of all major industrial countries like the United States, England, Germany, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, etc. (E.g. members of the "G7/G8" ) are active and fully cooperative participants in this conspiracy. "
So Donald Trump is a part of this NWO conspiracy?
Most conspiracy theorists will immediately say no and hastily concoct some reason why.. but what really bakes their noodle is then how did he win the presidency?
However if you admit he's part of it, then he's a puppet. A bitter pill for CTers to swallow either way
Choices, choices.0 -
You keep using phrases that betray belief in some sort of tangible identifiable group..
1. As mentioned, "New World Order" or "NWO" is a phrase, not an entity or organisation that is "installed"
2. It's a subjective description. Politicians and leaders have been using the phrase to loosely describe a sea-change in geopolitics or different ideological eras/epochs
3. There isn't literally an organisation called "the Third World", "the Arab Spring" or "the New World Order" so it can't be headed by someone. Bianca Jagger, David Ike, George Soros, The Illuminati, etc are not, to the best of our knowledge, sitting at a desk, picking up the phone and saying; "New world order, how can I help you?"
4. I think I'm starting to piece this together, do you believe man-made climate change is a hoax or a conspiracy?
Seeing as Miss Jagger used the phrase and you're not one bit happy with my interpretation, and reject it, does it not make sense that she would seem best placed to explain what she meant by saying a new world order?
You say one thing, someone else can say something else, but only she could tell you who's right.
She could independently adjudicate the matter for you and anyone else that sees room for confusion in the matter.
Why not reach out to her?
As far as I can see she'll speak to anyone who'll listen to her.......
Essentially you're asking me if I think that man has instigated climate change by manually adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and if I think that man can similarly reverse, control, and prevent the climate from undesirably changing in the future by manually adjusting the level of atmospheric CO2.
We could discuss that quite separate topic in the Climate Change thread if you like.
It's here:
https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057828857/42/#post106220604
Regardless, I fail to see what my opinion on that has got to do with Bianca Jagger's and the German Goveenment's WBGU's hopes for a new world order where national sovereignty will require being transcended in favour of a new global common.0 -
Advertisement
-
You've yet to explain how your interpretation is correct or why anyone should believe it.Seeing as Miss Jagger used the phrase and you're not one bit happy with my interpretation, and reject it,
Could you detail what you believe this actually means and what it actually entails?Regardless, I fail to see what my opinion on that has got to do with Bianca Jagger's and the German Goveenment's WBGU's hopes for a new world order where national sovereignty will require being transcended in favour of a new global common.
Is Bianca jagger somehow going to control all governments? Or...?0 -
You've yet to explain how your interpretation is correct or why anyone should believe it.
My interpretation is of no more value than yours, and yours is worth no more than mine.
We're not pulling the proverbial strings after all.
That's why I've advised contacting Ms. Jagger to see if her interpretation matches yours.
If it does, it does, and you win!
I can't see any other way round it for you.
Does that sound like something you'd be interested in doing?Could you detail what you believe this actually means and what it actually entails?
Is Bianca jagger somehow going to control all governments? Or...?
How would I able to detail any more than what's in the public domain???
I don't go in for fantasising about things.......0 -
-
Is a flawed way of thinking. A faulty interpretation does not automatically carry the same weight of the correct interpretation
Who is best placed to explain the correct interpretation of Bianca Jagger's use of the phrase?
King Mob, you, or Bianca Jagger?
Think about it for a moment.
Personally, I'd go with the latter.
What sort of broken logic could possibly suggest otherwise?0 -
Who is best placed to explain the correct interpretation of Bianca Jagger's use of the phrase?
King Mob, you, or Bianca Jagger?
Think about it for a moment.
Personally, I'd go with the latter.
What sort of broken logic could possibly suggest otherwise?
There another possibility you have missed
That you have misinterpreted it and have started a post on a public forum based entirely on that misinterpretation0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I think a new world order would be an excellent way of doing things.
Reasons would be scrapping the market.
Better division of resources.
Reduction of climate change ozone layer.
A fairer world.
Lower hourly working week.
It’s a bit of a no brainer.
I think the only people who gain from the new world order conspiracy is the few at the top with all the riches.0 -
"Hello Bianca"
"Hi"
"When you mentioned 'New World Order' in your speech.. did you mean it literally? that you are head of a new supreme leadership on earth comprised o-"
"-click"
I'll stick with the misinterpretation part0 -
Most of all of the above is 'random gobbledygook word vomit'.
However a former high ranking Canadian defence chief believes exactly what the title of this thread suggests.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5568394/who-is-paul-hellyer-conspiracy-theories-aliens-illuminti/
Then again he's now 94, and probably flogging a book or something.0 -
In EUROPE we have free movement of services and in case anybody missed the purpose it is not to enhance the lives of employees . We also have a situation in IRELAND where we now have to shun some of our cultural values in case we might offend non nationals . I welcome non nationalists to our shores and am not racist and I believe that people of all faiths and nationalities should be allowed to express their beliefs freely as long as they do not restrict the freedom of others . I do not have to believe that anybody set out to create a NEW WORLD ORDER but let us put ourselves in the minds of the SUPER rich for a moment . They can buy anything they want , no worries about a home , college fees , health insurance , cost of a holiday so they need something to play with and that happens to be us . The most effective way to conquer the world is to get rid of families and communities so that everybody regards themselves as an individual. Ring a bell?0
-
No, they are not of equal value.My interpretation is of no more value than yours, and yours is worth no more than mine.
We're not pulling the proverbial strings after all.
For you to be right it means that there is a conspiracy to install one random person as a world controlling dictator for motives unknown and for some reason everyone's ok with it.
For me to be right, someone on the internet needs to be misinterpreting something.
Which of these scenarios are more likely.
No, not really. It sounds like a silly tactic for you to avoid addressing points.That's why I've advised contacting Ms. Jagger to see if her interpretation matches yours.
If it does, it does, and you win!
I can't see any other way round it for you.
Does that sound like something you'd be interested in doing?
You have not shown that your interpretation is convincing. You have not actually detailed anything that seems to be worth discussing and you have not detailed any of the consequences of the conspiracy theory. And on top of that, you have contradicted yourself several times.
I don't see why I would need to call this person to ask if she's part of a conspiracy that makes no sense and I have no reason to believe exists.
Again, it's your conspiracy theory. You're the one who seems concerned about this issue. Why haven't you called?
Well you can explain what installing a new world order actually entails.How would I able to detail any more than what's in the public domain???
I don't go in for fantasising about things.......
You could explain in what ways would they transcend sovereignty.
You could explain where you got the notion that there would be an unelected position that dictates stuff to all governments.
You could actually outline your problems or worries about their aims.
Are you now suggesting that the details of this plan and the aims of the people involved are hidden?0 -
You have not shown that your interpretation is convincing.
Yes I have.
This is good game isn't it?
Reminds of the shool yard!
But seriously, why not take up your concerns with those who are causing you to be so concerned?
Think of this as being a bit like a newspaper, no one is going to lose sleep about whether you can understand what you've read or not, and plaguing a reporter with endless circular questions about what's a pretty easy to follow story isn't really going to make it any easier for you to understand if they're not bothered entertaining you.
Do you follow?0 -
Meh, I'm holding out for the next Ice Age. Then things might be balanced a bit.0
-
You have not shown any reason to conclude your interpretation is convincing.Yes I have.
But seriously, why not take up your concerns with those who are causing you to be so concerned?
Or that it's not ridiculous.
Your position is based on a single, narrow interpretation of a phrase.
But then you also claimed not to believe that your theory is not connected to any of the defining points of that interpretation of the phrase.
You have then dodged every question put to you.
If my questions are circular, it's because you are avoiding the questions and issues.
If your theory was so "easy to follow" you could explain it easily.
Again:
You could explain what installing a new world order actually entails.
You could explain in what ways would they transcend sovereignty.
You could explain where you got the notion that there would be an unelected position that dictates stuff to all governments.
You could actually outline your problems or worries about their aims.0 -
You have not shown any reason to conclude your interpretation is convincing.
Or that it's not ridiculous.
Your position is based on a single, narrow interpretation of a phrase.
But then you also claimed not to believe that your theory is not connected to any of the defining points of that interpretation of the phrase.
You have then dodged every question put to you.
If my questions are circular, it's because you are avoiding the questions and issues.
If your theory was so "easy to follow" you could explain it easily.
Again:
You could explain what installing a new world order actually entails.
You could explain in what ways would they transcend sovereignty.
You could explain where you got the notion that there would be an unelected position that dictates stuff to all governments.
You could actually outline your problems or worries about their aims.
Let me know when will you be providing the readers with evidence to prove why I'm wrong.
Being confused about what I've said doesn't equate to anything other than being in a state of confusion.
You need to refute what I've said.
Does that seen like something you can do?
How about if you spend a few hours on Google and try to find Bianca Jagger disputing my interpretation of what she meant.
And see if you can find the WBGU saying its had a change of position and is no longer going to pursue it's published ambition which will require the transcending of sovereignty for a global common.
And, see if you can find Angela Merkel withdrawing her support for the WBGU.
They're just a few pointers to get you started.
If you can do that you will have proven that I'm wrong and you were right.
Until then, you haven't.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, unfortunately that is not how it works. You have made the claim, you have to support it. It's not possible for anyone to prove a negative.Let me know when will you be providing the readers with evidence to prove why I'm wrong.
Being confused about what I've said doesn't equate to anything other than being in a state of confusion.
You need to refute what I've said.
Does that seen like something you can do?
You have not explained why your interpretation is correct or likely.
And again, you need to outline what you believe this actually means.And see if you can find the WBGU saying its had a change of position and is no longer going to pursue it's published ambition which will require the transcending of sovereignty for a global common.
How would they be transcending sovereignty?
How is it similar to what conspiracy theorists claim about a New World Order?
Have you now also dropped your original claim that they plan on installing an unelected position that dictates stuff to all governments?0 -
No, unfortunately that is not how it works. You have made the claim, you have to support it. It's not possible for anyone to prove a negative.
You have not explained why your interpretation is correct or likely.
And again, you need to outline what you believe this actually means.
How would they be transcending sovereignty?
How is it similar to what conspiracy theorists claim about a New World Order?
Have you now also dropped your original claim that they plan on installing an unelected position that dictates stuff to all governments?
Wash, rinse and repeat.
See my above.
Let me know when you think you've assembled the evidence you need to produce to refute my interpretation.
And the evidence that you need to produce to permit you to stand over your assertion that the people I have named are engaged in or are intending to engage in nefarious activities.
I wonder are they reading this?
It is public after all, yes?
They might feel like forwarding your unproven allegations to their legal advisors.
Laters?0 -
Maybe you could answer my very direct and simple questions that you have dodged for the 5th, 6th time now?Wash, rinse and repeat.
I think it's apparent that you are unable to answer these questions, since your position does not have any merit.
What assertion have I made? I am very specifically not accusing them of anything. I just don't accept your interpretations of what they say.And the evidence that you need to produce to permit you to stand over your assertion that the people I have named are engaged in or are intending to engage in nefarious activities.
You seemed to be claiming many things and have contradicted yourself and backpeddled several times.
So I'm asking you to clarify your assertions.
You claimed That they wanted to install an unelected position of power that would dictate things to governments.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106205530&postcount=13
Are you now abandoning this claim? If so, say so.
If not, please explain where you are getting this notion.0 -
Let me know when you think you've assembled the evidence you need to produce to refute my interpretation.
The onus is on the person presenting the theory to back it up with evidence
Also the theory seems pretty vague and subject. If I am to get this right, the people you've named are linked by environmental concerns? And the "New World Order" part due to the phrase they used in a speech discussing changing attitudes (e.g. governments, leadership) towards the environment
From there, it seems to be a debate centered around your personal interpretations and semantics
Every group of environmentalists wants to naturally change the world (stop pollution, etc) and recently more governments around the world have been paying more attention to this (e.g. China) and taking stronger measures toward setting goals, reaching targets, cutting emissions in regards to those environmental concerns0 -
Let's be clear, this isn't a courtroom, so I don't know why there is this much bickering going on. There's nothing to win.
@Dense: clearly you've done nothing to convince any of the readers and contributors here that your interpretation is correct. Either we can leave it at that, or, you can try and support your interpretation further. It is your interpretation - your claim - and your burden of proof. I could say "there is a teapot made of solid gold in geostationary orbit on the dark side of the moon." It is not rational at all to presume that I am right because others find difficulty in disproving this - it would rationally be up to me to prove the existence of said golden teapot satellite.
"And see if you can find the WBGU saying its had a change of position and is no longer going to pursue it's published ambition which will require the transcending of sovereignty for a global common."
This isn't what the document actually said, which was as follows:
"Politically, this requires a historically unprecedented transcending of established sovereignty concepts and purely power-driven global politics in favour of ensuring the long-term availability of global commons."
This is not, as you seem to be suggesting the way you've misquoted it, as getting rid of the notion of sovereignty altogether and making everything global common. It is in the context of the document referring to the notion that the climate is not impacted by sovereignty: CO2 emissions for example do not care about where the border is drawn. It is referring to the long-term availability of global commons such as clean air. It's right there in the document, in its full context.0 -
The onus is on the person presenting the theory to back it up with evidence
I'm not presenting a theory.
I'm presenting you with reality.
The lady said what she said.
We're open to interpreting it differently.
I said that earlier. Twice.
The WBGU said what it said.
Why not ask King Mob to present their evidence to back up their claim that the people I've told you about are engaged in nefarious activities?
Different rules for different people?
AKA Double standards?
Seems like it.0 -
I'm not presenting a theory.
You are. It's your own personal theory, interpretations and opinions.
1. Did X person say the phrase "New World Order" in a speech? Yes
2. Does it mean what you personally think it means? Up for debate, your opinion isn't fact
Likewise, the other poster who believes in a different "New World Order". That's also a personal theory.0 -
I'm not presenting a theory.
I'm presenting you with reality.
No, you're presenting an opinion based on a selective reading of some material you came across. In your own words,
"Don't the aims appear consistent with what any New World Order aims would consist of?
Global control of citizens and nations, by a new single power seems a prerequisite.
I'm simply taking the speaker at face value"
"her very clear message, one heralding the ushering in of a global New World Order of economic control"
Which contradicts your latter statement:
"I didn't mention one world government."
Furthermore you seem to suggest that the stated aims of the German Chancellor and the WBGU is global control of citzens and economics, but the document only uses the term "control" or any derivation thereof, 5 total times, none of them to declare any stated aims to control the global economy or citizens. Those instances are as follows:- Karl Polanyi (1944) referred to this process, too, as a ‘Great Transformation’, and showed that stabilisation and acceptance of the ‘modern industrialised societies’ were only successful through the embedding of uncontrolled market dynamics and innovation processes into a constitutional state, democracy and the creation of the welfare state – i. e. through the emergence of a new social contract.
- Several countries are currently planning to increase their use of nuclear energy. The WBGU urgently advises against this, above all because of the not negligible risk of serious damages, the still unresolved issues concerning final storage, and the danger of uncontrolled proliferation.
- The financial challenges of the transformation are significant, but controllable.
- The great transformations the human race has so far experienced were, for the most part, the uncontrolled results of evolutionary change.
- As far as the as yet unregulated, short-lived radiative forcing substances such as soot particles and ozone-forming gases are concerned, there could be separate agreements directly related to national air pollution control.
Similarly the document mentions citizens 12 times:- One key element of such a social contract is the ‘proactive state’, a state that actively sets priorities for the transformation, at the same time increasing the number of ways in which its citizens can participate, and offering the economy choices when it comes to acting with sustainability in mind.
- The idea of a new social contract refers to the necessity of humankind taking collective responsibility for the avoidance of dangerous climate change and other dangers to the planet. For one thing, this needs a voluntary capping of the usual options for economic growth in favour of giving the people in those parts of the world already suffering the consequences of our irresponsible behaviour, and particularly future generations, room to manoeuvre. For another, the transformation needs a powerful state, counterbalanced by extended participation on the part of its citizens.*
- The new social contract is an agreement to change: the global citizenship consents to expecting innovations that have a normative link to the sustainability postulate, and, in exchange, agrees to surrender the instinct to hang on to the established.*
- A central element in a social contract for transformation is the proactive state with extended participation in a multilevel system of global cooperation. It entails two aspects, frequently thought of as separate or contradicting: on the one hand empowering the state, which actively determines priorities and underlines them with clear signals (for example with bonus/malus solutions), and on the other hand, giving citizens more extensive opportunities to have a voice, to get involved in decision-making and to take a more active role in politics.
- A powerful (eco-)state is often thought of as restricting the autonomy of the ‘man in the street’, whilst at the same time, any meddling on the part of the citizen is viewed with misgivings as a disturbance factor to political administrative rationality and routines.
- A precondition for a successful transformation policy, though, is the simultaneous empowerment of state and citizens with regard to the common goal of sustainable policy objectives.
- The WBGU recommends the approach of these goals on four interconnected levels: substantive through provision of climate protection targets in climate protection legislation; constitutionally, through the setting of a respective national objective regarding climate protection; procedurally, through extending the opportunities for citizens and civil society organisations for public participation in decision-making, access to information and legal protection; and institutionally through mainstreaming the climate policies of government institutions (for example, by way of the establishment of a joint ministry for environment, climate and energy).
- Statehood transcends national borders and sovereignties, particularly as far as climate, energy and the environment are concerned; this aspect also requires new supra- and transnational institutions. One prime example for such improvement, in the opinion of the WBGU, is the European Union’s network of institutions, as the EU, after all, will also benefit from impulses for a deepening of its integration through joint, citizen-friendly climate, environment and energy policies (bundle 3).
- The EU obliges its member states to give its citizens access to information on environmental issues, to give them the chance to participate, and to make legal remedies available to them.
- Exemplary for mobilisation of the global community is the Aarhus Convention, so far limited to Europe, which obliges its member states to advise their citizens of environment-relevant projects, and provides them with ways in which to participate, obtain information, and legal recourse.
- The drawing up of a ’Charter for Sustainable Development‘ that codifies the joint responsibilities and duties of all states and their (global) citizens regarding the protection of the Earth system would be a significant step towards a global social contract.
- Therefore, the social contract addresses future generations in two ways, as it is they who will participate in bringing about the change in future. Above all, however, it is also in our young citizens‘ interest to rapidly accelerate the transformation and to stop impeding it – now.
* In reference to a new 'social contract':- Because of progressive economic and cultural globalisation, the nation state can no longer be considered the sole basis for the contractual relationship. Its inhabitants must responsibly take transnational risks and natural dangers, and the legitimate interests of ‘third parties’, i. e. other members of the world community, into account.
- Traditional contract philosophy presupposed the fictitious belief that all members of a society are equal. Considering the disproportionate distribution of resources and capabilities in today‘s international community, we must have effective, fair global compensation mechanisms in place.
- The natural environment should be given increased consideration when revising the social contract.
- The contract has to bring two important new protagonists into the equation: the self-organised civil society and the community of scientific experts.
None of which jive with your assertion that the proposal here is for a global economic-controlling citizen-controlling new world order. The document mentions economy 23 times, I will let you Ctrl+F that at your own leisure. Since you married economic and citizen control to one another I feel sufficient that by disproving one of those couple claims I have succinctly disproven your other.
So you are in fact offering a baseless interpretation of what the stated aims of the document in effect are, having demonstrably not taken any time to read through it yourself.
So I'll ask again: what do you think is going on here, what is your interpretation, and what is your basis for that opinion?0 -
Let's be clear, this isn't a courtroom, so I don't know why there is this much bickering going on. There's nothing to win.
@Dense: clearly you've done nothing to convince any of the readers and contributors here that your interpretation is correct. Either we can leave it at that, or, you can try and support your interpretation further. It is your interpretation - your claim - and your burden of proof. I could say "there is a teapot made of solid gold in geostationary orbit on the dark side of the moon." It is not rational at all to presume that I am right because others find difficulty in disproving this - it would rationally be up to me to prove the existence of said golden teapot satellite.
"And see if you can find the WBGU saying its had a change of position and is no longer going to pursue it's published ambition which will require the transcending of sovereignty for a global common."
This isn't what the document actually said, which was as follows:
"Politically, this requires a historically unprecedented transcending of established sovereignty concepts and purely power-driven global politics in favour of ensuring the long-term availability of global commons."
Sorry Overheal, but isn't an unprecedented transcending of sovereignty still required, whatever way you look at it?
Regardless of what it's in favour of?
The answer is obviously yes.
So I correctly paraphrased the requirement.This is not, as you seem to be suggesting the way you've misquoted it, as getting rid of the notion of sovereignty altogether and making everything global common. It is in the context of the document referring to the notion that the climate is not impacted by sovereignty: CO2 emissions for example do not care about where the border is drawn. It is referring to the long-term availability of global commons such as clean air. It's right there in the document, in its full context.
Again, I didn't misquote anything, I accurately paraphrased that an unprecedented transcending of sovereignty is an aim of the WBGU.
Now, in relation to my OP, and particularly in relation to the claim I linked to which reported that Maurice Newman alleged that climate change was being used to introduce a new world order, the full, 400 page WBGU document (I linked to the summary for convenience) says, and I quote
"Managing the International Power Vacuum
The international power vacuum associated with the trend towards the multipolar restructuring of global politics and the resultant barriers preventing intergovernmental cooperation must be overcome
(Section 5.3.5). Geopolitical alliances, coupled with strong political leadership, can take on a defining role in this respect to progress towards the international policy quadrant of cooperative global governance in a decarbonised global economy (Figure 5.3-1).
The WBGU believes that a geopolitical strategy, using climate policy decidedly as the groundbreaking vehicle for establishing mutual trust between the global superpowers, and for the constructive development of global interdependence, serves best here"
http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu.de/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2011/wbgu_jg2011_en.pdf
There you have the WBGU (German Advisory Council On Global Change) clearly stating that it has decided to use climate change as the vehicle upon which it will fulfil it's ambition of rectifying an international vacuum of power which it has apparently identified, and which will require an unprecedented transcending of national sovereignty in order to do so successfully.
Which in my opinion amounts to them saying they'll be trying to use climate change as an excuse for an unprecedened transcension of national sovereignty (for whatever admirable reasons).0 -
Advertisement
-
sovereignty concepts, not sovereignty itself. Big difference, in fact.
So no, you have no correctly paraphrased.
And yes, rectifying international power vacuums caused by multipolar interests (eg. US vs China, is actually given as an example, Russia v the EU or the conflicts in the Middle East would be others), is not a nefarious goal. It is actually one of the purposes, QED, of the United Nations, to get nations to come together and have a dialog via the elimination of barriers to such dialog (eg. by having a general assembly). This doesn't mean that the US and China and Russia are all going to be answering to a single ruling body. If that's what you got out of that, I cannot help you. What you should have gotten out of that, is that they want superpowers to cooperate on issues that transcend sovereignty concepts, like global climate change, and pollution. That is not 'New World Order' by the colloquial definition of a plot or a plan to rule the world from a single governing or bureaucratic body.0
Advertisement