Is the "New World Order" racist?

[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.