Fusion of ConspiraciesEdit
In international relations theory, the term "new world order" refers to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. However, in conspiracy theory, the term "New World Order" (the capital letters are distinguishing) refers to the advent of a cryptocratic or totalitarian world government.
At the core of most theories, a powerful and secretive group of globalists is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign states and other checks and balances in international power struggles. Significant occurrences in politics and business are speculated to be caused by an extremely influential cabal operating through many front organizations. Numerous historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to achieve world domination primarily through secret political gatherings and decision-making processes.
In the past, the conspirators were usually said to be crypto-communist sympathizers who were intent upon bringing the United States under a common world government with the Soviet Union, but the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 undercut that theory. So most conspiracy theorists changed their focus to the United Nations as the likely controlling force in a bureaucratic collectivist New World Order, an idea which is undermined by the powerlessness of the U.N. and the unwillingness of even moderates within the American Establishment to give it anything but a limited role.
According to ThreeWorldWars, "The term New World Order (NWO) has been used by numerous politicians through the ages, and is a generic term used to refer to a worldwide conspiracy being orchestrated by an extremely powerful and influential group of genetically-related individuals (at least at the highest echelons) which include many of the world's wealthiest people, top political leaders, and corporate elite, as well as members of the so-called Black Nobility of Europe (dominated by the British Crown) whose goal is to create a One World (fascist) Government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to their agenda."
The ‘cessation of hostilities’ in Lebanon, (i.e. of the Zionist attack against its people), under humiliating conditions for the Zionist army ―which used to enjoy in the past successive victories leading to a continuous expansion of Israel― was a surprise to some, whereas to others it was utterly expected. It was not, anyway, the first time that this has happened. As recently as 1996, Hezbollah was sending again Katyusha rockets into northern Israel and Shimon Peres of the ‘progressive’ Labour Party was also following the same scorched-earth policy as Olmert, with the aim of driving out the local population through mass bombing of the infrastructure and allowing the Zionist army to crush Hezbollah. Although Peres managed at the time to drive 400,000 people from their homes, creating in the process similar hecatombs as today including the murder of 102 civilians taking refuge in the village of Qana (yet again!), the operation failed to dismantle Hezbollah. Despite this dismal failure, Zionists attempted to occupy South Lebanon, until they realised by 2000 that such an occupation was unsustainable. It now seems, however, that they have learned a lesson from previous failures: if evicting Hezbollah from Southern Lebanon, through the use of Israeli military power, was impossible and a permanent occupation of it was non feasible, attempting to de-activate it through the use of the Lebanese army and the ‘peace-keeping’ force of the ‘international community’ (read: the transnational elite and those dependent on it) might be worth trying.
Against Zionist CampaignEdit
Although therefore, the military outcome of the new Zionist campaign was for several military analysts well anticipated, it is now clear that the pre-planned attack of Israel with the collusion of the military leadership of the transnational elite did not aim at a military victory as such ―without of course expecting the sort of damage they suffered in the hands of Hezbollah!— but, mainly, to a diplomatic victory. This sort of victory was almost guaranteed by the predominance in the UN of the transnational elite (USA and EU) and its allies in the Russian and Chinese elites, the former being keen to secure entry into the World Trade Organisation (the Bush Administration aptly postponed a decision on this last month, presumably, in order to blackmail the Russian elite to support it in Lebanon and Iran) and the latter having to protect its economic ‘miracle’, which crucially depends on foreign investment and exports to the members of the transnational elite. In other words, it seems that their plan has always been to de-activate Hezbollah, through the establishment of an extended ‘safety zone’ between the Israel-Lebanon borders and the Litani River, which will be “an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL”, as prescribed by Resolution 1701 passed unanimously by the transnational elite and its allies. Their hope is that this ‘peace-keeping’ force, consisting of contingents from the armies of several members of the transnational elite and its allies, will achieve what Zionists could not achieve in the previous quarter of a century or so! Furthermore, given that the core of this force will be the politically divided Lebanese army (which did not manage to fire a shot while the country, it was supposed to protect, was being smashed into pieces!), this development is highly likely to lead to a new civil conflict inside Lebanon, further undermining the resistance against the transnational elite and the Zionists in the Middle East.