dialog re: A Brief History of the New World Order


Richard Moore

Bcc: contributors w/thanks

re: A Brief History of the New World Order


Rand Clifford wrote:

Richard, congratulations on a superb piece. As you probably suspect, I’ve
done extensive research into this whole sordid affair–never have I seen
the details so expertly tied into such accessible and coherent unity.
     Your writing is so effortlessly evocative, I’m quite anxious to read your
     And with your permission, there are passages in this essay I’d like to
quote as I write articles more focused on what we can do, assuming we have
time, to avert this bankster monstrosity.
     To a fellow writer, you have created here a humbling piece of work. With
utmost respect, I wish you strength to go further.

Hi Rand,

Many thanks for your feedback, which means a lot coming from a fellow researcher. You are most welcome to quote from the article. I’m sending you a copy of my book, and I posted your own NWO analysis to newslog:

     Nests In Hell

And permit me to share your websites with our readers:


Stephen Shaw wrote:
Thank you for this article. I have never seen the big picture laid out so cleanly. The picture is compelling in how much it makes sense of history, but shocking, still, in the Red Pill way even for me!
     Will be proud to post the article to a new website I am working on!

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for your feedback. Back in 2000 I published an article, “Escaping the Matrix”. It was the most successful thing I’ve ever written, in terms of being a timely message and getting relatively wide circulation, on the net, and in a dozen or so printed periodicals. I think the NWO article could be successful in that way as well, at this pivotal time, but I want to revise it first. There are some statements that are too easy to attack, and aren’t really needed. And several points have come up in these dialogs that should make the story stronger. When I revise it, I’ll post it to newslog and post the URL to cyberjournal.


David Creighton wrote:

Try to delay your comments about Obama until he’s had his first hundred days, at least. He may be an elite shill, or he may be playing an elite shill in order to be in a position, when opportunity knocks, to actually do something. One could not get there without playing such a role, as you know, but to what extent it is a cover I do not yet know. Do give him, and the rest of us, a moment to catch his breath.

Hi David,

My observations lead me to see this as one of the pivotal moments in the NWO project, on a par with WWI and WWII, regardless of who is President. This is when the final consolidation of global sovereignty is to be implemented. Just as with Wilson and Roosevelt before, this pivotal moment must be managed carefully by a charismatic leader who can bring the public along, and who is fully committed to the success of the project. This pivotal moment is also much more condensed in time than the earlier ones, and is unfolding very rapidly before our eyes. This is not a time, I suggest, to sit and wait to see what it all means. We’ve already been given signals aplenty, and we need to pay attention to them.


Rich Winkel wrote:

Richard, I’ve been trying to dig up evidence that the collapse was
deliberately induced.  Aside from greenspan’s speech to the economic
ministers in abu dahbi last february, bush’s blocking of state predatory
lending investigations and the pentagon’s preemptive agreement with
canada to help in the case of a civil uprising, are there any more
data that you know of?

Hi Rich,

I think Richard Cook presented the case well in his article,  
     They Did It On Purpose

Besides the direct evidence brought in by Cook, regarding how the collapse was engineered, there is also circumstantial evidence of various kinds, indicating advance preparation for the collapse.
For one thing, there is the uniformity of government responses. Always it’s hundreds of billions for bailouts and infrastructure, which breaks the budget, and then billions cut from social services, blamed on the broken budgets. As I’ve read reports from Australia and Europe, and watched Irish and British TV, I see exactly the same ‘solutions’ being implemented everywhere, always with firm rhetoric about ‘we have no choice’, and always justified in terms of special local circumstances. It would appear that government leaders were coached in advance about the ‘correct’ response.
And that’s what gatherings like the Bilderberger meetings are for, to which government and media figures are invited, and whose proceedings they must promise not to disclose. It’s an insider’s club, where second-tier leaders can rub shoulders with top world figures, hear what others don’t hear, and feel important. These meetings are where everyone is tipped off about what will be coming up, and told what the correct response and spin should be. 
From a career point of view, there’s every reason to remain a member of this club, and go along with the agenda. To do otherwise not only ruins your political career, but you can be sure your government would have a hard time getting financing from world markets. As always, there are both carrots and sticks. 
In this light we might note that just before the collapse Prime Ministers Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair both resigned, and in each case the Finance Minister (Brian Cowan and Gordon Brown) was appointed to take his place. Bertie and Tony, with their sparkling eyes and charming smiles, were suitable leaders for glad-handing through boom times. Brian and Gordon, with their sombre demeanors, are more suitable for blundering through bad times. I say blundering, because that is how it will seem to the public. In fact, they will be doing exactly what is needed to accomplish unstated elite objectives.

 In reference to this related newslog article …
     Chalmers Johnson: How U.S. Taxpayers Finance Fantasy Wars

… Paul wrote:

Another urgently needed piece. I haven’t found a single article lately along this line. It’s as if Pentagon spending and the economic collapse are occurring in different universes.

Hi Paul,

This too is part of the new-world-order project. Chalmers notes that esoteric, space-based weapon systems are being developed at great expense, and points out that these have no relationship to today’s military requirements. He attributes this state of affairs to the paranoid fantasies of Pentagon generals, and their lobbying clout. But those weapons are quite suitable to military requirements, if Russia and China stand in the way of achieving global power. And indeed, Putin has made it clear that he has had enough of the US running the world, and China is quite determined to be a dominant regional power.

As you point out we have two economic universes here. For projects which serve the interests of the financial elite, such as bailouts for themselves and a strong US military, uncountable billions are always available with little debate. For everything else, the budget comes into consideration, and belts must be tightened. 

Here in Ireland this is particularly blatant. After going 400 billion Euro into debt to fund the bailout, Brian Cowan now insists he must cut 2 billion from salaries in the public sector. Why is that one-half percent so important? Why didn’t he give the banks only 398 billion, and leave the public sector alone? This would have made little difference to the banks’ balance sheets, and a very big difference to public-sector workers and their families.

Blustering Brian explains the budget cuts, by saying that Ireland must be attractive on financial markets in order to fund its deficits. He speaks truth here, for once, and this tells us exactly why there are two universes. When a government is running big deficits, it can only survive by borrowing still more on international markets. The bailouts (conveniently) left all governments with huge deficits, so now the elite bankers can dictate exactly what governments can spend their money on. Run your government our way, or we’ll cut off your credit. Clearly Cowan, and the other heads of state, have been told what the conditions will be for future loans. 

And those conditions are quite like those the bankers (via their IMF) have been imposing on the global South for decades with their restructuring programs: cut unprofitable social services, privatize profitable social services, remove regulations, undermine unions and worker protections, meet debt repayments, and fund infrastructure development. While the oil-price increases following 1973 were the means of reducing the South to this kind of debt slavery, it has been accomplished in the West with the bailout schemes.

This scenario of debt-imposed austerity can be compared to the inter-war years in Europe. Then as now, these circumstances provide two benefits to elites. First, the billions in debt repayments go into their coffers. Second, with populations desperate for any kind of relief, it provides the opportunity to engineer a new social regime. In Europe it was charismatic Hitler and Mussolini that were tasked with the social-engineering project. In our case, on a global scale, that task has been assigned to Barak Obama, the charismatic leader that the whole world is watching, through the fawning eyes of the elite-controlled mass media.

With a new world order at the level of governments, and a new economic order following the collapse of global growth, it makes sense to impose an appropriate new social order on the masses. The nature of that social order is not yet clear. Naomi Wolf, in her new book The End of America, makes a strong case that we’ll get outright fascism, just like Europe in the 1930s. She presents her observations very cogently in this Youtube video:

In fact the fascist option has frequently been chosen in much of the postwar South, particularly during the era of the disappeared in Latin America. The School of the Americas specializes in storm-trooper training and torture methods, and South Americans will never forget 9/11 (1973), when the CIA replaced Allende with Pinochet. Naomi may be right that the plan is to move these methods across the Rubicon, from Empire to Rome itself. 

In order to keep that option open for us in the North, Bush, the elite proxy who laid the foundation work for Obama, established the infrastructure and legal precedents for unrestrained fascism. With the help of the events of 9/11 (2001), and his launch of the pre-prepared ‘war on terror’, governments throughout the West adopted ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation, giving them total police-state power, whenever they find it necessary, provided only that they declare a ‘terrorist emergency’. Constitutions throughout the West now have an opt-out clause.

Obama hasn’t said much in the mass media that can give us clues about the new social order, but he has made it clear that he has big social changes in mind. He talks about a grand bargain, working together, ending partisanship, rebuilding America along new lines, ‘fixing’ pensions and medical care, taking bold decisions, and leaving behind the limits of the past. His watchword is change, but the details are being deferred while he finishes up the bank robbery that was begun by Bush.

We can get some glimpses into the new social order if we look at some of the things Obama and his top advisors have said off-camera of the mass media. Last July 2nd, Obama spoke in Colorado Springs, and he included these words:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

More details can be found in these articles:

     Rahm Emanuel and Obama’s Civilian Security Force

     Are the media airbrushing Obama’s speeches?
What does he mean by civilian security force? What threats will be created in order to make such a force seem necessary to the populous? Will this be our version of the SS, or of Latin America’s paramilitaries? Will it be people spying on their neighbors, like in Communist Eastern Europe? Will it be like airport security, with uniformed folks on street corners checking your papers, asking you questions, and perhaps selecting you for closer inspection? Regardless of what form it takes, there’s going to be an army of folks keeping tabs on us, right where we live. And you can be sure they will all be Obama faithfuls, and will be eager to support his agendas.
Are you doing your part to rebuild America? Are you part of the change, or are you a subversive? In an atmosphere where are all supposed to be working together, and everyone is suffering depravation, the social pressure to conform to the party line, to be part of the specified solution, will be very strong. Dissenters will be resented by those who have accepted the formula of sacrifice. Dissenting activists will be seen to ‘deserve’ whatever treatment they get; they are the reason for slow progress in rebuilding the nation. We each need to do our part for the health of the state.
Fascism is a broad term, often used loosely, and it has different meanings to different people. Nazism was an extreme version, with its mythology of racial superiority, its arrogant pride in brutal methods, and its expansionist agenda. In Italy it was more watered down, and a spectrum of fascist forms have been employed subsequently throughout the South.
Mussolini is credited as the inventor of fascist ideology, and that Latin term refers to a bundle of sticks. He used that image to symbolize his social-engineering changes, where each segment of society (workers shopkeepers, etc.) would be represented at the national level by some organization, and at that level decisions would be made. The representative agencies are the ‘sticks’ of society, and they are bundled together at the top. The idea is to subvert the overly democratic electoral process, and replace it by a hierarchical process that can be more easily managed from the top. 
We can see hints of this flavor of fascism in Obama’s all-work-together grand bargain, and his appeals to his Internet-fed followers to overcome Congressional resistance by actively lobbying for his policies. We can also this pattern in Ireland’s social-partnership scheme, which preempts the collective bargaining process for labor, and limits the ability of elected officials to respond to their constituents. 
Mussolini also said that fascism is in essence a union of the corporation and the state. By that criterion, the whole West has been fascist since at least the end of WWII. Fascism is a spectrum, and I suppose the best metric for that spectrum is the following: the more elements of Nazism that are included, the more fascist it is. 
We are clearly being set up to shift further toward the Nazi end of the spectrum, but how far is not at all clear. Bush prepared a path that goes all the way, just in case, but Obama has brought much more subtle and sophisticated management techniques into the picture. Where he can coax and inspire, he will coax and inspire. Where that doesn’t work, the path of harder choices remains available. One thing is certain: further obstacles to the new world order project cannot be tolerated, not after a century-long campaign, involving two world wars, that has successfully brought the bankers to the very gates of institutionalized global power.
We are now in a situation where Western governments are subservient to the banking elite, chained by debt to elite agendas. As I argued above, Obama’s rhetoric of working together, and his not-quite publicized plans for Civilian Security Force, seem destined to lead us to a social ethic where the individual is subservient to the needs of the state. With states subservient to banks, and people subservient to states, that’s already too much fascism for my taste, whether or not they open up the detention centers that Halliburton has prepared for us, and that Blackwater thugs are eager to “guard”.