Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:It's a shame this page is so poorly managed, ] (]) 19:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
:It's a shame this page is so poorly managed, ] (]) 19:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
::See ] who says they are going to post my name to Medium.com and Twitter. ] ] 14:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::See ] who says they are going to post my name to Medium.com and Twitter. ] ] 14:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:::Say, {{U|Doug Weller}}, some of my buds at the Trilateral Commission want me to ask if you'd like to be in charge of world copper prices from now on. You in? ]] 23:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere.
Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Secret SocietiesWikipedia:WikiProject Secret SocietiesTemplate:WikiProject Secret SocietiesSecret Societies
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
I have just modified one external link on New World Order (conspiracy theory). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
An appropriate edit to be made here is to move the Rothkopf and/or the Marxist interpretations into the intro paragraphs of this article. The last sentence of the intro paragraphs, specifically: "Those political scientists are concerned that mass hysteria over New World Order conspiracy theories could eventually have devastating effects on American political life, ranging from escalating lone-wolf terrorism to the rise to power of authoritarian ultranationalist demagogues", should be followed up by the Rothkopf/Marxist interpretation as a counter to this, in saying that through elite ran neo-imperialism and capitalistic/financial globalization, there is a legitimate risk of western civilization descending into a new form of totalitarianism on a possible global scale. 1-2 extra paragraphs for the intro on this is not a big problem. If there's an argument against, there should be an argument for, one based off of elite theory and geo-political reality, and shouldn't be buried to the bottom half of the article. As it currently stands, this intro is slanted to one side, and can miseducate people on what is a vital civic matter by using loaded words and one-sided analysis for the intro, which most people wont read past especially when so much of the intro is filled with stigmatized, loaded language. Just my two-cents that I feel would make this article much better and educational. I'd attempt the edit myself but its protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.235.80 (talk • contribs)
Australia Health Minster confirms new world order is linked to covid. Please remove this as "conspiracy theory"
Dr. Kerry Chant, the Chief Health Officer of New South Wales, sent social media into a frenzy on Thursday, after she referred to a post-lockdown “new world order” during a Covid-19 press conference.147.161.167.2 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
This expression exists independently of the conspiracy theory being discussed in the article. It seem unlikely to me that Dr Chant's use of it had anything to do with this topic. And Chant is a public servant in one state of Australia, not the Australian Health Minister. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what she said, Misplaced Pages supports the lockdowns in Australia and doesn't care how many people are gulag'd as a result. Shameless, I bet the ancestors of the Misplaced Pages founders are rolling in their ashen graves. 124.169.136.111 (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I have just left a formal welcome for you on your home page of your IP address. Please have a good look round at those links provided there, and learn a lot more about Misplaced Pages. I think you'll it works very differently from the way you think now. HiLo48 (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
When leaders across the world make the same choices and use many of the same phrases, it's not just a conspiracy theory, also consider all the ones that have been consecutively one after the other proven correct in the last few years... I don't disapprove of the new treatment, but you don't enforce a novel technology with a lot of dangerous flaws and still call yourself a good person. When it's gone through phase 3 testing i'm quite happy to take it, but i shouldn't have to take it now or don't work and accept being refuse into many places except for take out. The lockdowns and mandates are not in support of health, you dont' hit peaceful protestors with batons, tear gas and bullets, you don't harrass people with fines for stepping into their front yard, you don't ignore the skyrocketing suicide rate, you don't limit hospital services for non-covid patients and remove emergency support for many people, you don't oppress people for their health.
This is the new flu, it was labelled endemic from the beginning, remember the 2 weeks? It was known that this is somethign we have to live with, it was merely a matter of method. Then Australia implemented a Zero Covid policy which is medically STUPID and impossible. The evidence is clear, this IS a New World Order and politicians are not your friend, they never have been adn it's never been more clear than it is now. People who haven't taken a non-vaccine symptom suppressant are not dangerous, it's a new medical treatment which they have a right to refuse and those waiting to receive transplants have been struck off the list, but if they die they can still donate.
Please raise your awareness, we're trapped and democracy is unlawfully being deconstructed by the government and we've no way to oppose them. Worst part, due to mass fear and cleverly designed hypnotism by way of media manipulation which is plain to see now, the wider populace are prone to being brainwashed and many are in support of the governments changes with a lot of ignorance about details that they are offended to be informed of. They will just decry misinformation while having an unexplainable lack of explanation themselves, but won't change "sides", even though we are one people as Australians. I have no other way to reach out, we're being silenced on all platforms, if you must slander alternative opinions as misinformation (talking of those in authority) you're just trying to suppress information and avoi a discussion. The government have never revealed their sources, why? I don't doubt this will be erased, but i need to say something, it's too upsetting to be Australian right now, my dad is brainwashed, the things that he says now that he despised before 2020... and my mum is in a state of trauma and fear. I want out, but i won't take a treatment that have disabled or injured many and has killed some. It killed my auntie but i don't talk about it lest the thought police harass me for disapproving.
You are intentionally misleading readers to your chosen expounding of NWO. If that person conflated two distinct topics, this page merges and mashes three distinct topics and then uses the scapegoat of willfully limited perspective as the reason to not update the page to be correct, accurate, and proper.
Example: I could write a page about pizzas have bear poop.. and when people complain pizzas don't have bear poop, I can say "well this page is about pizzas with bear poop and therefore I am completely correct" ... all while I mislead people about pizza.
Say, Doug Weller, some of my buds at the Trilateral Commission want me to ask if you'd like to be in charge of world copper prices from now on. You in? EEng23:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022
This edit request to New World Order has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove conspiracy theory. There is no way to determine what a conspiracy theory is unless proof with out a doubt has been presented. No such proof has been submitted that proves the new world order is a conspiracy theory therefore it can not be labeled as such Lars860 (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree that conspiracy theory is inaccurate, there is evidence littered all over the place and information is being suppressed. Some parts of the theories have even been admitted out loud. To dismiss this as a conspiracy theory is slander against free speech and freedom of expression. The disrespect is palpable. If theory after theory proves true, how is it a theory? It's a plausible theory. To say otherwise is true disinformation. Please consider this seriously, there's difference between a conspiracy which is a legitimate concern in and of itself, but there's a difference been conspiracy and plausible theory. The logic is being carried forwards, there are some erroneous theories, and some correct ones, only time can tell, but slander is totally unnecessary. 2406:3400:60A:E040:C13B:492F:CBF:DEED (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
When it is theorized that a conspiracy is taking place, that is by definition a “conspiracy theory”. In this case, the term is not meant to be dismissive, but precise and descriptive. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Do you not see the logical fallacy of circular reasoning you are imposing? If the New World Order (conspiracy) actually has truth, then it would be implemented by politicians. But then Misplaced Pages would call it "New World Order (politics)" even though New World Order (conspiracy) would be true at the same time. Please think about the logical fallacy you folks here at Misplaced Pages have created by giving yourself the ability forever to merely say "oh that belongs in New World Order (politicians)" even as "New Wolrd Order (conspiracy)" demonstrates at least some measure of truth. 2601:602:180:2C0:D84D:E082:906A:3A35 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
The definition given at new world order (politics) is "dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power in international relations". The conspiracy theory posits "a secretly emerging totalitarian world government". Those two definitions are not difficult to distinguish from each other, and distinguishing them is not "circular reasoning". A. Parrot (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to add a section on The Theosophical Society, which is not really a secret society but one who does publicly state their own creation of a New World Order. Has this been discussed, or may I post and await a comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XThe9thSignX (talk • contribs) 12:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The Lede is supposed to summarize the article and it summarizes the entire article except for the General usage (pre-Cold War) section under History of The Term. This is the first and most important historical fact of the usage of the term that is also covered here by many sources https://en.wikipedia.org/New_world_order_(politics). The first revert was because i didnt provide a page and the second revert was because it needed more context. Its placement in the second sentence is the best spot because the third sentence already begins talking about the conspiracies.Foorgood (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Wilson being among the first to use the phrase is interesting background, but I am not sure it belongs in the lead of THIS article … this article really is focused on the various NWO conspiracy theories, and Wilson was not using the phrase in that context. Are you aware that we already discuss Wilson’s usage in some detail in our related article entitled New world order (politics)? THAT article is better fit discussing Wilson’s usage.
What we really need HERE is to fill the gap between Wilson’s use and the more modern usage of the phrase by conspiracy theorists. Do we know who the first writer to use the phrase in the context of describing a conspiracy was? Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
But my sentence is appropriate because its mentioning the benign first use of the term from Wilson to describe global governance then the sentences that follow describe how conspiracy theorists exaggerated it. We can state: "Although Presidents Wilson and Bush used the term to refer to goals of global unity, conspiracy theorists would later exaggerate the idea into a conspiracy of malintent." To answer your question, HG Wells and the John Birch Society are mentioned further down as essentially the originators of the conspiracy so we can mention them instead if you wish. Foorgood (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok… I agree that Wilson’s use should start off the “History” section (as it now does)… and that this should be followed up by discussion on how the Birchers adopted the phrase and morphed it into a conspiracy term. However, I still don’t think it rates as something to mention in the lead. Again, the focus of this article is the modern conspiracy theories, and Wilson’s use is not part of that. In the context of conspiracy theory, his use is no more than a mildly interesting historical footnote… Worth mentioning briefly in the body text, but not important enough to highlight (which mentioning in the lead would do). Hope that explains my concerns. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Possibly (certainly more than Wilson)… although I am not sure that any “first use” of the term merits being highlighted in the lead. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
We don't have to say "first" we can simply say: "Conservative groups like the John Birch Society led opposition against the idea of global governance after the term was used by various world leaders." It's exactly what the Cambridge University source says.Foorgood (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Was the phrase used sporadically for decades before it became part of conspiracy lore? A summary sentence, if included in the first few paragraphs, might need to note that its meaning varied based on the user. Llll5032 (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes and that's why the sentences I have offered are: "Conservative groups like the John Birch Society led opposition against the idea of global governance after the term was used by various world leaders." OR "Although Presidents Wilson and other world leaders used the term to refer to goals of global unity, conspiracy theorists would later exaggerate the idea into a conspiracy of malintent."Foorgood (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
A version of your second sentence might be DUE, if RS make this argument (we must be careful about WP:SYNTH). I think it should include some more specifics about dates and people, and formatted inline WP:FOOTNOTES with pages of cited sources. It may be more DUE as the last paragraph of the top, rather than in the first. Do you agree, Blueboar? Llll5032 (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The book (which is about a different subject) says "it is speculated" Wilson said it. Whatever we say, it should be careful and precise. Llll5032 (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes based on endless sources we can easily say: "Woodrow Wilsons vision for global unity after world war I introduced the phrase but it would later be used by conservative groups to describe a conspiracy of malintent." Not only do the endless sources say exactly that but this article and the new world order (politics) article say the same thing.Foorgood (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the