Is the "New World Order" racist?

[UltraBudgie]

I was having a conversation the other day about racism, and what the line is between racist and supremacist ideologies. For example, is the proliferation of the practice of abortion in America, which disproportionately affects the Black population and communities, a form of racism, class warfare, or eugenics? Please ignore this example if you believe that the widespread availability of pregnancy termination is merely a startling victory for human rights.

I had a point to make that I wasn't sure of, and wanted to get the opinion of you well-reasoned folks here. I assert that the "New World Order" is in fact non-racist, while still being a completely supremacist elite ideology: based on the principle that they are more qualified and entitled to rule than the non-elite masses. We can perhaps point to this supremacist ideology originating in the modern world in British Colonialism and Empire, with its profoundly racist extractionist practices and concept of manifest destiny. This allied in the 19th century with American Exceptionalism and its hemispheric dominance of native and non-white populations, and allied in the 20th century with Europe cultural strongholds and the Zionist doctrine of a nationalist manifestation of "chosen people". This "New World Order" aggregate has somehow maintained its heterogeneous supremacist and racist nature in the current day, bound together by institutions such as the World Economic Forum, its differences transcended by the common belief: we deserve to own and control everything, because we are better than you.

So, while still being profoundly racist in specific expression of classism and supremacist ideologies, the modern world globalist system is non-racist in that it doesn't really care, in aggregate, what form that racism and cultural dominance takes. This allows it to use racism as a weapon of control against the proletariat who are mired in lower-class racism, anyone who does not acknowledge that the god money trumps such minor hatefulness.

Look at the Ivy League in the Americas, who are quite willing to accept people of all skin tones, as long as they act in accord with their values, or present an opposition safely positioned within their sphere. Or the alliance of UKUSA and Israel, or Christian and Jew, who don't care how each other present their dominance of the middle east and muslim populations, as long as their economic and territorial goals are in accord.

What are your thoughts? Are you racist?

[UltraBudgie]

haha i just had a mental image of daggers being sharpened and ten-foot poles being moved safely out of range

[Maxmars]

There are literally hundreds of different kinds of cattle.  The color ranges span everything between pure colors, and patterned manifestations of appearance.
In that context, cattle ranchers are not racists... or specifically biased about cows.

The globalist approach to governance pertains to humans reduced to generic 'cattle.'  They are in fact, non-racist.  Certainly, not hostile or hateful to a particular category of cow.  They value cows for being cows...

The human world is replete with dysfunction and spuriously contrived justifications to adhere to ignorant selfishness and prideful ambition. This is most often effected as "imposed control."  

No system is racist that does not explicitly invoke racial bias (and there are governments that do) - but even if a governments doesn't proclaim racial relevance to governance, the people working in it's name may.   Racism is a social dysfunction, not a political one.  It can be made political, but politics doesn't require racism as an existential component.

I understand the how racism has expressed itself in history.  There are many lessons to learn from it, while we still have access to it unvarnished.

But in the end, racism is something more fundamental than identifying some excuse to separate people.    If I mention racism in America, comments about blacks and whites surfaces to dominate the conversation.  In India it would be very different; in China, even more so.   Racism in Australia is a thing, but in Europe another.

Racism is a specific form of bias.  Bias is manifested in a lot of ugly ways, race being only one.

Classism is usually denied by every upper-class in almost any society.  It was once ignorantly embraced as 'self-evident' and 'natural.'  Of late , we're seeing the problems it actually causes.  And the upper classes can offer no solutions... while solutions proposed by lower-classes seem always to invoke the destruction of the upper-class.

What that tells us might seem self-evident.

Governance is expressed through the actions and policies of people... who can be both illogically biased, and pridefully inclined to exert their will. 

Imagine a people who are obliged to 'obey' the government as 'authority' have no agency to change it. 

Where there is no free speech they can't even talk about it. 
Where there is fascism, any attempt to address it will be deemed a national threat (or a notional one.) 
Where there is nationalism, they will be called traitorous anti-patriots.

But in all of that, racism is just a 'topping' flavor... a permanent fixture in any government that won't change.

Bias is the problem itself... racism is a flavor.

Truth is, we still have work to do...

Sorry, if I didn't quite meet the challenge of the OP.  But I did try.

[UltraBudgie]

The globalist approach to governance pertains to humans reduced to generic 'cattle.'  They are in fact, non-racist.  Certainly, not hostile or hateful to a particular category of cow.  They value cows for being cows...

Yes, I think that's it, in rather blunt language. Although it can be noble to practice animal husbandry with care and respect for the animals, the analogy evokes the image of the ear-tagged concentrated feeding operations that Americans avoid looking at. But the core elitist idea, of their control being "responsible stewardship" over the lessers who would otherwise descend themselves into chaos, remains.

Some might argue that evoking and amplifying latent racism in the public, for purposes of political control, is racist, and makes those doing it racist, even if they regard everyone with equal contempt. Sort of like how passively benefiting from a system of extractionist colonialism is an implicit endorsement of it, and makes you guilty, if your young hair is blue and you scream such things.

No system is racist that does not explicitly invoke racial bias (and there are governments that do) - but even if a governments doesn't proclaim racial relevance to governance, the people working in it's name may.   Racism is a social dysfunction, not a political one.  It can be made political, but politics doesn't require racism as an existential component.

I guess that's the distinction I was looking for. That seems a narrow definition, by modern standards. "Racism", as I understand it, is now considered to include choosing not to loudly denounce any socio-political system that supports or institutionalizes racist outcomes, even after you've been explicitly told to do so by young college idealists whose perspective is obviously better than yours and not sophomoric at all (they say). But I don't mean to widen my definition of the topic that much.

Clearly, the "othering" that the NWO uses to control the populace finds racist outlets. From rhetoric similar to "cesspool countries" and immigrant-blaming, stereotypes of nationality extend to cultural groups, and eventually extend to racial demographics, for those predisposed to such latch on to such. That is knowingly and cynically used to cloak racism. The generational money does not merely see, for example, South America, as culturally backwards, there's a latent perception of racial inferiority there, too. Remember, these people were eugenicists, before publicly endorsing that became, um, inconvenient. And we may say we are dropping bombs on peoples because "they hate our way of life", or some such, but it also neatly matches up with their language, religion, and skin colour. Humans are not known for subtle nuance at large scale.

Classism is usually denied by every upper-class in almost any society.  It was once ignorantly embraced as 'self-evident' and 'natural.'  Of late , we're seeing the problems it actually causes.  And the upper classes can offer no solutions... while solutions proposed by lower-classes seem always to invoke the destruction of the upper-class.

What that tells us might seem self-evident.

That is true and actually makes me think the elitist have a point. Americans are terrible (and not just Americans) and all to ready to hate and kill. But is that because they've been made that way, deliberately, by decades of being told who (other than themselves!) to despise? Generations of movies telling them the way to solve problems is to find the right bad guys to kill? If you want to justify being the "good guy" keeping it all in check, perhaps you have to create the problem, and I think that's what's been done by the NWO. Many many times. It works.

Sorry, if I didn't quite meet the challenge of the OP.  But I did try.

No, that was excellent and I very much admire the idealism you expressed in some of the portions I elided.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

I think everyone's something...

You may have stumbled on "The Great Woke Conundrum of Diversity."

Criticism: The world is inherently bigoted and taught to identify difference. It has long served as a form of self-regulation and cohesion for societies to prefer homogeneous and safe environments of like things. Sunshine and assimilation. Shun the different and burn the heretic.

To untrain people to be that we must... apparently use the EXACT same assimilation tactics only in reverse to try to make everyone bigoted against the bigots... until it starts harming shareholders. It's somewhere between the extremes of Charlottesville and Portland.

Once again, South Park did it years ago.

The Great Woke Conundrum of Diversity:



If anything it's a defeatist acknowledgement people (as in the dumb panicky MIB definition) are too stupid, and prone to follow, to control with extract of transcendentalist hippie, but need to goosestep, even with rainbows and equality, to get anything accomplished.

[Byrd]

I was having a conversation the other day about racism, and what the line is between racist and supremacist ideologies. For example, is the proliferation of the practice of abortion in America, which disproportionately affects the Black population and communities, a form of racism, class warfare, or eugenics? Please ignore this example if you believe that the widespread availability of pregnancy termination is merely a startling victory for human rights.

I had a point to make that I wasn't sure of, and wanted to get the opinion of you well-reasoned folks here. I assert that the "New World Order" is in fact non-racist, while still being a completely supremacist elite ideology: based on the principle that they are more qualified and entitled to rule than the non-elite masses. We can perhaps point to this supremacist ideology originating in the modern world in British Colonialism and Empire, with its profoundly racist extractionist practices and concept of manifest destiny. This allied in the 19th century with American Exceptionalism and its hemispheric dominance of native and non-white populations, and allied in the 20th century with Europe cultural strongholds and the Zionist doctrine of a nationalist manifestation of "chosen people". This "New World Order" aggregate has somehow maintained its heterogeneous supremacist and racist nature in the current day, bound together by institutions such as the World Economic Forum, its differences transcended by the common belief: we deserve to own and control everything, because we are better than you.

So, while still being profoundly racist in specific expression of classism and supremacist ideologies, the modern world globalist system is non-racist in that it doesn't really care, in aggregate, what form that racism and cultural dominance takes. This allows it to use racism as a weapon of control against the proletariat who are mired in lower-class racism, anyone who does not acknowledge that the god money trumps such minor hatefulness.

Look at the Ivy League in the Americas, who are quite willing to accept people of all skin tones, as long as they act in accord with their values, or present an opposition safely positioned within their sphere. Or the alliance of UKUSA and Israel, or Christian and Jew, who don't care how each other present their dominance of the middle east and muslim populations, as long as their economic and territorial goals are in accord.

What are your thoughts? Are you racist?

Depend on what you mean by "New World Order"... if you're talking political, then it's been redefined three times and refers to international balance of power
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_...(politics)

The conspiracy theory about a "New World Order" actually dates back more than a hundred years and has its roots in anti-Semiticism (good paper on it here: https://www.middlebury.edu/institute/aca...-dangerous) -- and in the US, popularized by the John Birch Society in the 1950's where it was used against Communism.

The 1990's saw it fused with End Times Christianity (I was on the old Rapture Ready Board and lemme tell ya, it was VERY popular) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_...acy_theory

And it's changed again with Black Lives Matter and other movements.  The Wikipedia article is really very good, and many of our early/earliest ATS members will get a kick out of revisiting the changes (I'm one of the original ATS members...if you list the members by join date, I'm somewhere in the top 30.)


So... it's kind of "Whatever you can shoehorn in here as the latest Scary Thing ™"

Also, the idea that abortion is practiced mainly by Blacks (and is thus genocide) is not correct.  There's a 3 percent (roughly) difference in the number of Black women seeking abortions vs White women.  Hispanics are third but at roughly three percent below white women:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/6565...cContainer

All of those numbers would go down quickly if men decided to universally wear condoms unless they and the woman agreed that they wanted a child.

[UltraBudgie]

All of those numbers would go down quickly if men decided to universally wear condoms unless they and the woman agreed that they wanted a child.

quickly reminds me of saying i heard that the best birth control is aspirin! yes just take the bottle and hold it tightly between your knees haha!

[UltraBudgie]

So... it's kind of "Whatever you can shoehorn in here as the latest Scary Thing ™"

Thank you for the citations. I acknowledge that the term "New World Order" is a catch-all term, and ambiguous. No one really calls themselves that, except perhaps George H.W. Bush (haha!). I suppose I figured that given that the forum name is "New World Order", we'd all just assume that it's something of a generally-acknowledged shibboleth, and go from there.

Although I did mention in the OP that I think this is something that, in the post-Enlightenment era, flowed out of English colonialism. To give more detail, I think the practice of Empire became economic, with the advent of large corporations such as the British East India Company, to the point where it rivalled, supplanted, or merged with State and Church power. In the late 19th century, this power had become the dominant world-shaping force, with adventurism such as the Boer Wars in Africa, the Opium Wars in China, etc., leaving the traditional practices of the courts of Europe behind. The secret alliance of this power aligned a select group of the aristocracy of England with the courts of France to bring in WWI in the early 20th century, cementing their dominance against the potential challenge of a united German+Russia. From there, this grew into an alliance based on the security of systems of international finance and trade, using treaties and transnational corporate power to essentially bypass the traditional sovereignty of the nation-state.

I'd point to Carroll Quigley's book "The Anglo-American Establishment" for a more formal Georgetown point-of-view on all this: http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/carrol...shment.pdf

To my more narrow point of racism, I was considering the colonialist roots of this thing, that it got its origins in the ethos of treating other people, countries, and races as "natural resources", to be managed and exploited. And how that works in to the mindset of that being "the natural order of things" -- an elite viewpoint that can still be seen today. I think that is part and parcel, inseparable, with the modern manifestation of elite rule: "It's a big club, and you ain't in it", as George Carlin said.

In practice, it's not "hardcore racist", so to say, in that if you align with that belief, skin color doesn't matter (although will perhaps always still be noticed). Rather, it is a system, which, if perpetuated, guarantees that racism and division will always exist in its wake, in the turbulence of how it operates. In that sense, it is racist.

Also, eugenics. The ubermensch always needs a untermensch. Sad.

[Byrd]

Thank you for the citations. I acknowledge that the term "New World Order" is a catch-all term, and ambiguous. No one really calls themselves that, except perhaps George H.W. Bush (haha!). I suppose I figured that given that the forum name is "New World Order", we'd all just assume that it's something of a generally-acknowledged shibboleth, and go from there.

Although I did mention in the OP that I think this is something that, in the post-Enlightenment era, flowed out of English colonialism. To give more detail, I think the practice of Empire became economic, with the advent of large corporations such as the British East India Company, to the point where it rivalled, supplanted, or merged with State and Church power. In the late 19th century, this power had become the dominant world-shaping force, with adventurism such as the Boer Wars in Africa, the Opium Wars in China, etc., leaving the traditional practices of the courts of Europe behind. The secret alliance of this power aligned a select group of the aristocracy of England with the courts of France to bring in WWI in the early 20th century, cementing their dominance against the potential challenge of a united German+Russia. From there, this grew into an alliance based on the security of systems of international finance and trade, using treaties and transnational corporate power to essentially bypass the traditional sovereignty of the nation-state.

I'd point to Carroll Quigley's book "The Anglo-American Establishment" for a more formal Georgetown point-of-view on all this: http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/carrol...shment.pdf

To my more narrow point of racism, I was considering the colonialist roots of this thing, that it got its origins in the ethos of treating other people, countries, and races as "natural resources", to be managed and exploited. And how that works in to the mindset of that being "the natural order of things" -- an elite viewpoint that can still be seen today. I think that is part and parcel, inseparable, with the modern manifestation of elite rule: "It's a big club, and you ain't in it", as George Carlin said.

In practice, it's not "hardcore racist", so to say, in that if you align with that belief, skin color doesn't matter (although will perhaps always still be noticed). Rather, it is a system, which, if perpetuated, guarantees that racism and division will always exist in its wake, in the turbulence of how it operates. In that sense, it is racist.

Also, eugenics. The ubermensch always needs a untermensch. Sad.

A nicely thought out answer, and I would tend to agree that it does promote an "us versus them" structure that turns part of the world into "things", whether you call them (insert racist term) or "sheeple" or whatever.  It is at its core very divisive.

The bigger problem is in trying to decide who belongs to the club, because the rules change depending on who's talking.

[UltraBudgie]

To untrain people to be that we must... apparently use the EXACT same assimilation tactics only in reverse to try to make everyone bigoted against the bigots... until it starts harming shareholders. It's somewhere between the extremes of Charlottesville and Portland.

Once again, South Park did it years ago.

Yes! Exactly! And I think this is where the filter applied to culture mediated by online technology becomes so poisonous. It forces everything to become anodyne, lest it be reflected poorly in the hateful light of the "black mirror". For example, in person I could say to a Mexican friend, "I greatly admire the People of the Bean!", and they would laugh, because they could see the friendship in my eyes, or whatever. But I would never say something like that online, because, suddenly, I would be a horrible racist! Oh no!

It makes it impossible to truly celebrate our differences, and we are forced into something like South Park's "Tolerance Camp", self-censoring and repressing. And that effect is used, cynically and divisively, by those who would rule us! That is what's racist!