People talk about the New World Order either as something that will happen in the future, or as something that will never happen, as it’s only a paranoid delusion. The fact is that the New World Order, to a considerable extent, is already here.
In Ireland, for example, all important national decisions are now being made by an IMF administrator: the nation is under the direct rule of a personal agent of the bankster dynasty. As far as Ireland is concerned, a centralized bankster regime is already in effect. Same is true for Greece and Italy. The NWO’s global regime-change project, leading to the end of national sovereignty, is already well underway.
The NWO project has of course other dimensions, in geopolitics, in control over energy and food, etc. In each dimension, if we delve into it, we can see that the project is well underway there as well. In the security-state dimension, for example, some people tell me they can’t even get on a bus anymore, without possibly someone wanting to ‘see their papers’ and ask ‘why they are traveling’.
The basic nature of the NWO regime has become very clear over recent years. It’s about the technocratic micromanagement of every detail of resource use and economic activity. That’s what the carbon economy and smart meters are meant to facilitate: resource allocations doled down from the hierarchy, and resource usage monitored down to the detail of how long you spend in the shower, and how warm you keep your house. (Beware the dictatorship of politically correctness)
When a regime wants to micromanage every aspect of society, we must recognize that the family, as an institution, will be seen by that regime as an unfortunate anachronism. It would be very unlikely that such a regime would fail to see the value to be gained from micromanaging childhood conditioning. An engineered technocratic society will run more smoothly if the people are conditioned from childhood to carrying out their programmed roles within that system. The family is a ‘loose cannon’, affecting childhood conditioning in ways that cannot be readily controlled, and in ways that preserve Old World Order values and perspectives. Much better for the state to raise children. … We’ll get back to this, but via a detour…
In this morning’s New York Times I read that Newt Gingrich is rising in the Republican charts, and that he represents a ‘grass-roots insurgency’. The media presents the campaign to us as a story; it tells us the meaning of what happens, and the motivation of the characters. This story ‘explains’ to us why we can expect certain outcomes in the future.
In the case of the Tea Party saga, for example, that ongoing story was ‘explaining to us’ why we were going to get a radically conservative Congress. In fact, the radically conservative Congress was engineered by other, more direct means, and the Tea Party saga was manufactured to make it appear that a ‘grass-roots insurgency’ was to blame.
In general, campaigns are orchestrated circuses, where the parts played by the actors, and the media portrayal of the events, are carefully coordinated with one another to give an overall desired effect. When we see ideas being put forward in campaigns, we are not seeing the ‘views of candidates’, in any meaningful sense, rather we are seeing new policy options being floated or revealed. The policy options come first; the selection of candidates / actors / puppets for both sides, and the speech writing, comes afterwards.
In the article below, we see that one of the ideas Gingrich put forward, back in 1994, was that children of welfare parents should be raised in orphanages. And it’s interesting, in the summary argument presented in the article, that he doesn’t talk about the children being better off and better fed in an orphanage, but about how a welfare-family upbringing leads to a ‘counter-culture value system’. He is explicitly floating the idea that it is desirable for children to be indoctrinated into an officially-approved cultural paradigm, and that forced separation from family is acceptable if it serves that end.