Joe Biden just used “New World Order” in a speech and conspiracy internet is about to explode. pic.twitter.com/bK0Bpj9Xyp
— Shayan Sardarizadeh (@Shayan86) March 22, 2022
Joe Biden said New World Order and the internet is exploding.
But why is that?
Why are Conservatives obsessed with talking about New World Order (NWO), Great Reset, and Globalists?
These terminologies drive certain people nuts. Conspiracy theories often use these wordings as a starting point. And I am somehow reminded of the Critical Race Theory (CRT) controversy.
It’s the same mechanism.
Conservatives hijack a term and use it to push their own agenda without knowing what it is about—or better said: while pretending not to know what this is about.
When Matt Gaetz tweets against the New World Order and insists on America First, I have to assume that he knows what he is doing.
Reject the New World Order. Embrace America First.
— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) March 22, 2022
Statements like these are helpful to understand what this is actually about.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 90s, George H. Bush said, “A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we’ve known.”
And he wasn’t the first American leader to use this term. Woodrow Wilson also referred to a New World Order after World War I. He won the Nobel Peace Prize as the architect of the so-called League of Nations in 1919.
Unfortunately, the League of Nations failed to provide safety to all its members. It also failed to prevent World War II.
But after the horrors of the Second World War, the international community tried again and started the United Nations. Unfortunately, the mechanisms of this organization didn’t work out during the Cold War.
The main reason for that was that the five permanent members of the Security Council were (and are up to this day) able to block any resolution by voting against it. When the United States wanted something, the Soviet Union blocked it—and vice versa.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was hope to overcome this dynamic. The United States was the only remaining superpower at that time. But American politicians like Bush sen., Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama knew that this was subject to change.
It was obvious that China, India, Russia, and other developing nations would challenge the unipolar power position of the United States sooner or later.
But nobody wanted to have another World War. Almost everyone agreed that overcoming so-called Geopolitics was the only way to prevent confrontation.
The idea was to replace the right of the strongest with universal laws that all nations could agree on.
These are all beautiful concepts, but there is one problem: it’s what political scientists refer to as Anarchy in international relations.
Universal human rights and international law are not helpful if several nations ignore them. If it’s a small country that violates these laws, the United Nations are able to act. But if it’s one of the Security Council’s permanent members breaking the rules, nobody can do anything about that.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was often referred to as the world police. If something went wrong anywhere in the world, the United States would step in to protect human rights.
But, as you can imagine, there were nations who didn’t like the idea of one nation making the rules. And that’s why I wrote “almost everyone” accepted the New World Order earlier in this article.
There are countries, politicians, and corporations who hate the concept of a New World Order based on Universal Human Rights and International Law. We are talking about Putin, China, and Republicans in the United States.
Why would they oppose an order that ends the era of geopolitics, wars, and colonialism? You probably already know the answer.
The right of the strongest caused by the Anarchy of international relations benefits those who are able to attack anyone at any time—but it’s also encouraging smaller nations to spend all their money on weapons to protect themselves (and us selling these weapons to them).
But what if small nations could rely on the promise that nobody is going to attack them? What if we could create a New World Order that doesn’t allow any country to attack another?
All interest groups opposing the so-called New World Order are the ones who are able to break international law without getting punished. Again, we are talking about Putin, China, and Republicans in the United States.
I am pretty sure that we can all agree that Russia’s attack on Ukraine breaks international law, but we also know that the United States broke international law in 2003 by attacking Iraq.
And that’s where things get really complicated and simple at the same time.
There are basically two options for humanity: geopolitics or international law.
If we decide to take the route of geopolitics, there will be a confrontation between the United States and China sooner or later. If we decide to take the route of international law, we would have to give up on the idea of being the world police.
International Law and Universal Human Rights are threatening the survival of the fittest ideology of superpowers—and that’s why those in power hate this concept.
New World Order loving Globalists like me would like to put humanity first.
Philanthropists like George Soros want an open society that allows everyone around the world to speak their truth without any fear of authoritarian leaders. And not to forget, Universal Human Rights also protect the LGBTQ+ community, free speech, and political participation.
Now, think about who are the ones making laws against gay people. Think about who wants to limit freedom of speech. Think about who wants to suppress voter’s rights.
Let’s call it what it is.
This is not a war between Russia and Ukraine. This is not a confrontation between elites and normal people. This is a competition between two ways of living.
One is based on equality, and the other is based on power.
One is based on fairness, and the other is based on force.
One is based on cooperation, and the other is based on confrontation.
The next time someone warns you about a New World Order, please ask yourself why someone would defend the status quo of international Anarchy.
It blows my mind how anyone could oppose an order that allows all humans to live on this planet in peace. It frightens me how many people oppose a system that takes power away from religious leaders and dictators to replace it with universal rules. It makes me angry to see rednecks taking sides with Putin, but it doesn’t surprise me anymore.
Dear Joe Biden, please keep pushing for a New World Order. Dear Globalists, please keep supporting human rights activists around the world.
Dear Tucker Carlson, I know why you love Putin.
Because somewhere in Moscow, there is a man who helped orchestrate this coalition of Russia and Republicans—his name is Alexander Dugin.