The Reasons We Fight The New World Order

From here:

The Reasons We Fight The New World Order

July 15, 2014 by

The Reasons We Fight The New World Order


“Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it.” — H.G. Wells, The New World Order (1940)

Throughout our lives and throughout our culture, we are conditioned to rally around concepts of false division. We are led to believe that Democrats and Republicans are separate and opposing parties, yet they are actually two branches of the same political-control mechanism. We are led to believe that two nations such as the United States and Russia are geopolitical enemies, when, in fact, they are two puppet governments under the dominance of the same international financiers. Finally, we are told that the international bankers themselves are somehow separated by borders and philosophies, when the reality is all central banks answer to a singular authority: the Bank Of International Settlements (BIS).

We are regaled with stories of constant conflict and division. Yet the truth is there is only one battle that matters, only one battle that has ever mattered: the battle between those people who seek to control others and those people who simply wish to be left alone.

The “New World Order” is a concept created not in the minds of “conspiracy theorists” but in the minds of those who seek to control others. These are the self-appointed elite who fancy themselves grandly qualified to determine the destiny of every man, woman and child at the expense of individual freedom and self-determination. In this article, I would like to examine the nature of our war with the elite and why their theories on social engineering are illogical, inadequate and, in many cases, malicious and destructive.

The ‘Greater Good’

I have always found it fascinating that while elitists and NWO champions constantly proclaim that morality is relative and that conscience is not inherent, somehow they are the ones who possess the proper definition of the “greater good.” If “good” is in all cases relative, then wouldn’t the “greater good” also be entirely relative? This inconsistency in their reasoning does not seem to stop them from forcing the masses through propaganda or violence to accept their version of better judgment.

As many psychologists and anthropologists (including Carl Jung and Steven Pinker) have proven over decades of study, moral compass and conscience are not mere products of environment; they are inborn ideals outside of the realm of environmental influences. The greater good is inherently and intuitively felt by most people. Whether one listens to this voice of conscience is up to the individual.

It is no accident that NWO elites end up contradicting themselves by claiming morality to be meaningless while pronouncing their personal morality to be pure. In order to obtain power over others, they must first convince member of the public that they are empty vessels without meaning or direction. They must convince the masses to ignore their inner voice of conscience. Only then will the public sacrifice freedoms to purchase answers they don’t really need from elites who don’t really have them.


I don’t claim to know what ideology would make a perfect society, and I certainly don’t know the exact solutions needed to get there. What I do know, though, is that no one else knows either. Whenever anyone takes a stage to announce that only he has the answers to the world’s problems, I cannot help but be suspicious of his motives. Rarely, if ever, do I hear these people suggest that more liberty and more individualism will make a better future. Instead, their solution always entails less freedom, more control and more force in order to mold society towards their vision.

The utopia offered by the power elite invariably demands a collectivist mindset that the individual must give up his self-determination and independence so the group can survive and thrive. The problem is no society, culture or collective can exist without the efforts and contributions of individuals. Therefore, the liberty and prosperity of the individual is far more important than the safety or even existence of the group.

The elites understand this fact, which is why they do reserve some individuality (for their own tiny circle).

No matter the guise presented — whether it be socialism, communism, fascism or some amalgamation of each — the goal is always the same: collectivism and slavery for the masses and unrestrained gluttony for the oligarchs.

The Philosophy Of Force

If your idea of a better society is a good and rational one, you should not need to use force in order to get people to accept it. Only intrinsically destructive ideas require the use of force to frighten the public into compliance. The NWO is an idea that relies entirely on force.

Globalization has been consistently sold to us as part of the natural progression of mankind, yet this “natural progression” is always advanced through the use of lies, manipulation, fear and violence. The NWO concept is one of complete centralization, a centralization that cannot be achieved without the use of terror, for who would support the creation of a malicious global power authority unless he was terrorized into doing so?

The only morally acceptable use of force is the use of force to defend against attack. As the NWO relentlessly presses forward its attack on our freedoms, we, the defenders, are labeled “violent extremists” if we refuse to go along quietly. The NWO’s dependency on force to promote its values makes it an inherently flawed methodology derived from ignorance and psychopathy, rather than wisdom and truth.

Dishonesty As Policy

As with the use of violence, the use of lies to achieve success automatically poisons whatever good may have been had through one’s efforts. The elites commonly shrug off this logic by convincing each other that there is such a thing as a “noble lie” (both Saul Alinsky and Leo Strauss, the gatekeepers of the false left/right paradigm, promoted the use of “noble lies”) and that the masses need to be misled so that they can be fooled into doing what is best for themselves and the world. This is, of course, a sociopathic game of self-aggrandizement.

Lies are rarely, if ever, exploited by people who want to make the lives of other men better; lies are used by people who want to make their own lives better at the expense of others. Add to this the egomaniacal assertion that the elites are lying for “our own good” when they are actually only out to elevate their power, and what you get is a stereotypical abusive relationship on a global scale.

Methodologies that have legitimate benefits to mankind deliberately seek truth and do not need to hide behind a veil of misinformation and misdirection. If a methodology requires secrecy, occultism and deceit in order to establish itself in a culture, then it is most likely a negative influence on that culture, not a positive one.

The Hands Of The Few

Why does humanity need a select elite at all? What purpose does this oligarchy really serve? Is centralized power really as efficient and practical as it is painted to be? Or is it actually a hindrance to mankind and an obstacle in our quest to better ourselves? Champions of the NOW argue that global governance is inevitable and that sovereignty in any form is the cause of all our ills. However, I find when I look back at the finer points of history (the points they don’t teach you in college textbooks), the true cause of most of the world’s ills is obviously the existence of elitist groups.

The “efficiency” of centralization is useful only to those at the top of the pyramid, because it generally stands on a vast maze of impassable bureaucracy. It has to. No hyper-condensed authority structure can survive if the citizenry is not made dependent on it. Centralization makes life harder for everyone by removing our ability to provide our own essentials and make our own choices. That is to say, centralization removes all alternative options from the system, until the only easy path left is to bow down to the establishment.

I have never seen a solid example of centralization of power resulting in a better society or happier people. I have also never come across a select group of leaders intelligent enough and compassionate enough to oversee and micromanage the intricate workings of the whole of the Earth. There is no use for the elite, so one must ask why we keep them around.

The Opposite View

Arguing over what should be done about the state of the world is a fruitless endeavor until one considers what should be done about the state of his own life. As long as men are stricken by bias, selfish desire and lack of awareness, they will never be able to determine what is best for other people. The opposing philosophy to the NWO, the philosophy of the Liberty Movement, holds that no one has the right to impose his particular version of a perfect society on anyone else. As soon as someone does, he has committed a grievous attack against individual liberty — an attack that must be answered.

Our answer is simply that the people who want to control others be removed from positions of control and that the people who want to be left alone just be left alone. Association and participation should always be voluntary; otherwise, society loses value. This is not anarchy in the sense that consequence is removed. Rather, the rights of the individual become paramount; and the liberties of the one take precedence over the ever vaporous demands of some abstract group.

The only reason for any government to exist is to safeguard individual freedom. Period. The original intent of America’s Founding Fathers was to establish a Nation that fostered this ideal. When government or oligarchy steps outside the bounds of this mandate, it is no longer providing the service it was originally designed for; and it must be dismantled. Unfortunately, it is a universal rule that uncompromising tyranny must often be met with uncompromising revolution.

When a new system arises that cannibalizes the old, enslaves our future, uses aggression against us and mutilates our founding principles in the name of arbitrary progress, that new system must be defied and ultimately destroyed. The NWO ideology represents one of the most egregious crimes against humanity of all time, posing in drag as our greatest hope. It is based, fundamentally, on everything that makes life terrible for the common man and everything our inherent conscience fights against.

We would be far better served as a species if we were to turn our back on the NWO altogether and move swiftly in the opposite direction. Imagine what tomorrow would be like if there were no controllers, no statists, no despots and no philosopher kings. Imagine a tomorrow where people respect the natural-born rights of others. Imagine a tomorrow where people’s irrational fears are not allowed to inhibit other people’s freedoms. Imagine a tomorrow where interactions between citizens and government are rare or nonexistent. Imagine if we could live our days in peace, independently building our own destinies, in which our successes and failures are our own, rather than the property of the collective. It may not be a perfect world, or a utopia, but I suspect it would be a much better place than we live in today.

–Brandon Smith



And (MY  REPLY):

Re: “I don’t claim to know what ideology would make a perfect society, and I certainly don’t know the exact solutions needed to get there. What I do know, though, is that no one else knows either.”

Tsk tsk, Brandon – such pessimism!


I actually DO know what ideology will make a perfect society, and I also have the (quite simple) solution needed to get us all there: EDUCATION.

Only lying thieves (fraud being the most basic form of theft, the theft of the Truth) slanderously pretend their victims are too dumb to be educated!

The “elites” are cowardly masochists who always want to form ever-larger gangs to protect them selves; they are all about the double-standards of subjectivism, and so oppose universal objectivity; they want rights without responsibilities, and so must offload their responsibilities onto their victims.

The reason they embrace might-made group “rights,” is both offensive and defensive: they can always assert they are “defensively protecting” others if and when they can make even a tenuous connection between some others at least somewhat similar to them selves who,  somewhere else, at some other time, were oppressed by some other people who were sort of like YOU; in which case, YOU OWE THEM!

The corollary is that if and when they get caught for their crimes, they can always use the group idol as an alibi-excuse to dilute their own culpability:

“I didn’t do it! ONLY the GROUP did it! Whee!”

(Substitute “The System,” &/or “The Procedures” or your choice of idolatry for “The Group!”)

They are criminals.

This is why their modus operandi is to pretend the ends justify the means (but only for them selves, of course).

All attack-first prone “progressive” criminals, who feel entitled to have rights (like, to your stuff) without responsibilities (like, having earned or paid for them,) pretend to believe that the ends justify the means, when in fact the means really only ever define the end results: If and when you choose to lie, murder and rob others “to get ahead,” then, in the end, you’re not a “great success” – you’re still really only a lying, murdering thief!

They also feel (as Cass Sunstein does) that, since people CAN be tricked, SO they SHOULD be tricked, “but only FOR their own good, and by US, of course!”

In order to justify their masochistic choice to attempt to ‘control’ their fears by embracing the very pains which cause them (BY causing their worst-case scenarios them selves) they must objectify their victims as helpless and so also potentially dangerous mistakes, first: those who must be controlled, because they are too stupid to serve their masters willingly. And so, they also posit, their victims certainly can’t be educated, so they must be tricked and forced!

But people really can be educated, and so must be educated about their true relation to, and so also the real role of, “government” (their public servants):

Philosophically, it’s the difference between the original, ‘negative rights’ version of the Golden Rule of Law (as Mark Levin describes it) as posited by Confucius: “Do NOT Do Unto Others…!” versus the false, ‘positivist’ version, as mistakenly ascribed to Jesus (but embraced by all criminals) of “DO Unto Others!”

The difference being that the first OBJECTIVELY asserts that, between two or more humans (and so also all “groups” of individual humans) one can do nothing either TO, of FOR, an other, without first getting that other’s specific consent.

The ‘positivist’ view gives criminals the SUBJECTIVIST escape clause, that they CAN do things TO others without getting their consent first, so long as they at least pretend to be doing it FOR them; i.e:

“I’d LOVE to be ruled with an iron fist, for my own good, by ME, even if I wasn’t me! Whee!”

– Muhammad – (just for instance)!

In reality, under the historic Golden Rule of Law, in which all subsequent situational and circumstantial morality is most simply defined as:

“Do Not Attack First!”

… our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real concommitant corollary responsibility is to not attack (thereby innocent) others first.

Defensively counter-attacking second is always moral and is in fact the most obvious basic requirement for the existance of any true Justice in the world.

And, as for “government” itself:

Government, (best conceived of by Albert Einstein as the largest collectively-owned insurance company) is a great idea if and when it doesn’t compete with (much less pre-empt) private enterprise; it’s OK for the government to buy food to feed the poor, but not to demand that only it is qualified to regulate food growing everywhere, much less to restrict and deny private individuals from growing or stockpiling their own food. Same goes for defending every other need: government can defend the country, but not restrict the citizens’ rights to also own and bear their own arms to defend them selves; government can and should enhance private defense, but never replace it!

Even “government” or “the state” as being merely the largest group (of individual humans) has no right to attack any of its real live individual human citizen component parts first, which is why we have “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” in stead of (as collectivist liberal statist extortionist gangsters prefer) the “Guilty Until Never Proven Innocent” opposite.


The rest are all symptoms, and all sub-sequent valid legislation depends on that Rule: Every law is an if/then warning which says, in effect: If and when you choose to attack first in this, that, or those ways, then this, that, and these punishments will apply to you.

Bad laws are crimes because they attack first. At “best” they are only ‘ethical’ lists of rules and excuses amerliorating bad, attack-first criminal premises.

A “Judge’s” only job is to determine rational cause-and-effect (who started it) and all irrational criminal excuses or alibis are based on the opposite, victim-blaming slanderous pretense.

It should therefore be easy for any judge to see if a law is bad (an attempt to deprive citizens of due process, by disregarding any need for evidence by slanderously insisting on asserting that they are Guilty Until Never Proven Innocent, and so must impossibly prove a negative in order to defend them selves).

Bad laws are slanderously “pre-emptive” first attacks, like all gun control laws:

“Since you DO own a gun, therefore you WILL use it to commit some crimes, SO we must now stop you by ‘defensively’ attacking you first – for your own good, of course!” There’s no if/then; they are threats, not valid warnings. Pretty much every “law” any liberal ever passes, is some form of extortion like this.

Guns exist. They will never again not-exist. More laws do not equal order. In general, no force or police or laws are necessary among free citizens who can and will govern themselves, while the opposite is: no amount of force or police or laws are enough for a people who CANNOT – or will not – govern themselves.

Other bad laws depend not on what your free-will choice of what you might DO might eventually be, but on their subjective yet objectifying definition of what you ARE: in islam’s prejudicially slanderous us-versus-them and might makes right sharia code, all weaker groups – foreign infidels, women, children, slaves – are openly and officially pre-discriminated against, encoded right into their system of criminal laws.

Bad (“defensively pre-emptive”) laws are crimes because they attack first.

Unfortunately, there’s only so many symptoms of “Do Not Attack First!” one can address with “laws” of morality, only so many right answers, before one must veer off into exploiting the almost infinite number of sorta almost right,(but really wrong) answers, in order to keep up the pretense that one is actually doing something responsible to earn one’s pay and enjoy the right to govern others – a point which when reached, societies decline into criminality and empires fall into ruin. And this process of creeping, criminally-negligent control is what they call “progress!”



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: