What is the New World Order? Part 3Beau Albrecht
Part 3 of 3 (Part 1 here, Part 2 here)
What about the Freemasons?
This is where I describe groups often cited as participants in the more conspiratorial aspects of globalism. Feel free to skip straight down to the comments section to throw rocks at me for saying too much or too little about your favorite cabal.
At one time long ago during their interesting and somewhat murky history, the Freemasons were like the Libertarian Party, but with secret handshakes. That much was pretty annoying to the powers-that-be during the throne and altar days, and their reputation as subversives has lingered since then. They had a brief and rather unhappy alliance with the Illuminati, back when it was a real thing. That also tends to raise eyebrows even now. So do their odd rituals, which are so secret that you can read them online.
If you prefer absolutist monarchy and would rather be ruled by the wise Windsors and the jolly good Archbishop of Canterbury, or an inbred Habsburg king and the holy magisterium of Pope Francis, then feel free to grumble about the meddlesome Masons doing their bit to rain on the royalist parade. However, not all monarchs were on the outs with them; Frederick the Great was wondering what the real deal about Freemasonry was, so he joined. Mozart was another famous member, and a pretty cool cat.
At least as far as the United States is concerned, the Freemasons are apolitical these days. Whatever plan they might have had for America would’ve been (was?) completed long ago. They could’ve made the country whatever they wanted, since the Founding Fathers were all Freemasons, and so were all presidents until recent times. (That much isn’t so remarkable, since they were hugely popular back in the day — the go-to social club for Protestants.) If there had any agenda, it must have been Americanism before everything got pozzed in modern times.
Anyone claiming that the Freemasons have been waiting for centuries to spring a plot, when they could have ve gotten what they wanted long ago, has read a few too many Dan Brown novels. Lately, they do a lot of charitable work. They’re a pretty decent “cabal,” in my reckoning.
What about the Illuminati?
These were nasty nihilists from Bavaria long ago, more evil than Louis Althusser’s underwear. One could call them part of the crusty froth that sometimes bubbled up during the Age of Enlightenment. Lately, the Illuminati are an excellent distraction from real mischief. If I were an oligarch doing something shady, I’d be glad that there are lots of people chasing false leads, going down unproductive rabbit holes, and otherwise looking everywhere except at me.
Despite all the endless speculation there’s been, I just don’t find credible evidence of the Illuminati’s survival and continuity into modern times, much less that they serve in any kind of Mr. Big capacity. That doesn’t stop anybody from copying their symbolism for giggles, however, like that silly “all-seeing eye” thing. They never got a patent on behaving like nasty nihilists, either.
What about the Zionists?
Originally, Zionism was the effort to create a Jewish homeland. High-level connections within the early Atlanticist bloc facilitated the Balfour Declaration and subsequent events, to make a very long story short. The job was finished with Israel’s independence in 1948. Today, Zionism still exists in America, though in furtherance of other goals and interests which are unfortunately often at odds with the rest of society. Their bad publicity would fade away if they’d just stop doing that.
The problem is that Zionists tend to be afflicted with a highly developed sense of exceptionalism. This attitude goes back to certain antiquated Talmudic superstitions alleging that they were divinely selected to rule the world. Unfortunately, fever-brained guff like that readily lends itself to highly presumptuous globalist aspirations. Deescalating this tiresome old conflict would be tremendously helpful, but that’s going to be difficult until they get over themselves. To be fair, Zionist types who cause significant trouble are but a small subset of the Jewish population.
As a brief example of a Zionist interpretation of globalism, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion had some prognostications for the following 25 years in an interview in Look magazine from January 16, 1962. The Soviet Union would liberalize and the US would go socialist. Likewise, the political systems of Western and Eastern Europe would meet in the middle. Interestingly, he envisioned the USSR as the only country in the world that would retain its sovereignty. (There were globalists who considered their Soviet buddies to be a unique social experiment, some even believing it deserved nurturing with handouts from the rest of the world.) He predicted:
With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars.
In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah. Higher education will be the right of every person in the world. A pill to prevent pregnancy will slow down the explosive natural increase in China and India. And by 1987, the average life-span of man will reach 100 years.
That’s actually a pretty good summary of what globalism is all about, particularly in the viewpoint of that place and time. However, it’s somewhat lacking in details on how he expected to get the UN to build Israel’s “Shrine of the Prophets/Supreme Court of Mankind” in Jerusalem. (I’d like some of whatever he was smoking!) I’ll hand one thing to Ben-Gurion: Although we still don’t have average longevity of a century, I do like that idea better than that of certain recent talking heads who say there should be a maximum lifespan of 75 years.
What about the Space Lizards?
Reptilian tropes in science fiction can be a lot of fun. It’s essential to remember the “fiction” part, of course. David Icke, however, is a kook who takes this stuff quite seriously. Zionists don’t like that, since they assume he’s calling them out for their own bad behavior. The objections by tricky Zionist “watchdog” foundations probably inspired more Space Lizard memes than Icke himself.
If the globalists get what they want, will it really be so bad?
Excerpting from Deplorable Diatribes:
I’ve talked about far too much doom and gloom, so let’s consider the advantages of living in a one world government. (Put on those rose-colored glasses; this will be a wild ride.) The first benefit is pretty obvious. We could have world peace if only we erased all borders and — cue John Lennon here — got rid of nations. That was easy, right?
After that, why not do away with all the nasty divisiveness inherent in politics? Instead of electing our leaders, committees of policy wonks could manage everything. Surely they know what’s best, and can tell us how to run our lives. These wise experts will make all our decisions for us, all for our own good. Sounds great, doesn’t it?
Sad to say, there might be some malcontents who aren’t on board with that, and have the audacity to dispute the decisions handed down from on high. So it might be a bumpy ride in the beginning. How will conflicts be managed? With no borders, there will be no more need for armies. There only would be a global security force for putting down any inconvenient local rebellions. If your part of the world gets thoughts about independence, then swarms of soldiers from some other continent, equipped with heavy weapons and body armor, will be a friendly and respectful occupational army and save your district from the error of their ways.
To prevent such misunderstandings, we must hand in all of our own weapons. Obviously that would make everyone safer, wouldn’t it? If that doesn’t calm everyone down, then other measures might be necessary for security. Perhaps everyone needs their hands microchipped, and maybe even their foreheads barcoded with an identification number. Don’t worry; it’s all for our own safety and protection, of course.
Since religion is so divisive, we’ll just get rid of all that superstitious nonsense. If that’s too much to ask, there are a few ways we could go with it. There could be a single world church quite conveniently preaching globalist doctrines. To get everyone on board, they’ll just say that their previous religions were all correct, except of course where they contradict the new one. Another approach would be to promote a religion based on watered-down Old Testament teachings. One more alternative might be a religion about ecumenical feel-good stuff and New Age fluff. Finally, if a dapper old gentleman presents himself as a savior, a man of wealth and taste, we could just run with that all the way down the primrose path.
Ah, but there are more “benefits” to globalism than even that! It will be really efficient when we switch to one currency run by a single central bank, or at least have one currency per continent. Later, that could be tied into those microchips; no more credit cards to carry around! It’s a convenient security measure too. If anyone causes trouble, their microchips can be turned off. Without one, nobody can buy or sell anything.
But wait! There’s more! Eventually everyone in the world will start speaking the same language. Perhaps one will be selected that’s nearly as artificial and ungraceful as Klingon, and has hardly any literature of its own, but surely we’ll get used to it. We could do even better than that: forget our authentic cultures and trade them out for fast food, TV, and pop music. Imagine that there’s no culture, it’s easy if only you try, ooh ooh ooh . . .
The final step is that we all should look the same in the future. After all, race is really divisive, and it’s only a social construct anyway and doesn’t even exist, so it’s very important that we hurry up and get rid of that too. We’ll be the same as possible in the name of diversity! Some have objected that this only is being promoted to the race posing the greatest threat to globalist rule, but don’t you dare listen to those guys! Move along; there’s nothing to see here . . .
After all of these wonderful globalist measures, there will be nothing left after that to kill or die for. By then, we’ll think the same too. All we have to do is keep on obeying our wise rulers until the end of time. After all, they’re the most enlightened.
Actually, the truth is that nobody will be enlightened if the lights go out forever; that’s certainly a possible outcome if the misrule continues indefinitely. I was being quite flippant with the above, but most of the items have been real globalist proposals and initiatives. Already we’ve taken steps toward getting some of them. They’re playing the long game of gradualism (Zbigniew Brzezinski said so himself in a remarkably unguarded moment) though with occasional manufactured crises to nudge us in the direction they want us to go.
If the globalists are all-powerful, shouldn’t we just give up and let them do whatever they want?
Globalism does seem quite formidable, since it’s a dominant force in governments and other key institutions of the Western world. This doesn’t mean the present Deep State is all-powerful, however. History makes it very clear that dynasties come and go. Really, it’s quite difficult for the 0.001%ers to exploit 99.999% of the public, maintaining their rule by greasing palms, using cheap intimidation tactics, and censorship. They used to have secrecy going for them, but now they’ve been caught with their pants down too many times.
They’re afraid, nowadays. Their extreme actions in recent times seem like desperation. The top globalists are weaklings, far different from blue-collar racketeers like mafiosos. The Tech Tyrant executives are pussies. The elderly financiers look like they have one foot in the grave. Many members of the exploiter class have set up hidey-holes in New Zealand, illustrating that maybe they’re not sleeping too soundly. Actually, there’s a way they could start breathing a lot easier, which is to start governing responsibly.
Also, the globalists have painted themselves into a corner. To name a few ways:
- They keep doing the same things and have become predictable.
- One of these is running subversion strategies in countries already in their control. The Soviets were smarter than that; they learned early on that it doesn’t make sense to keep destabilizing a country long after the revolution is complete. After taking over, it’s time to switch to the normalization phase and throw the radicalinskis under the bus.
- For decades, they’ve been failing to rule wisely, tremendously weakening their own countries.
- One part of that has been importing tens of millions of Third Worlders; many expect things to be done their way, have theocratic inclinations, make irredentist claims, believe they’ll take over one day after they become sufficiently numerous, or otherwise are much more trouble than they’re worth. This strategy to dilute the majority turned out to be counterproductive, since too much diversity makes countries increasingly ungovernable. The crooked politicians and limousine Leftists are protected from vibrancy in their gated communities, but if things get worse, they’re at risk of sinking their own ship.
- Secrecy served them well for a very long time. Lately, the mask has slipped off.
- There used to be some utopian buzz about internationalism among parts of the general public, but that wore off long ago. Globalism remains tremendously unpopular now, which is a major impediment to their plans. For example, Bush the Elder’s New World Order speeches went over worse than New Coke. The people will never accept it, so the globalists have to keep trying to sneak it in gradually, or else resort to scaring the public as a dialectical strategy.
The Deep State is as capable as anyone else of making boneheaded mistakes. The bittersweet title of Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope recognizes that many of their plans fell through. That hasn’t changed since then. To take just one example, the Iran-Contra affair was a major disaster, and things would blow sky-high again even now if the other half of the bipartisan bungle became common knowledge.
Finally, we don’t have to be impoverished peasants subjected to the rule of some distant World Capital where “experts” run our lives and we’re tracked at literally every step. The usual suspects would be happy for us to think we have no recourse, but they’ve put themselves in a precarious position with their irresponsibility. They’re the ones treading on thin ice. The future is what we make of it.
If we get a global government and I don’t like the New World Order, where can I move where I’ll be left alone?
Since the late 1950s, Generalplan Ostrich became a long tradition. If you dislike the way things are going, you can move. When the same problems catch up to you, just move again. When Housing and Urban Development culturally enriches your street with a Section 8 housing project, you know the drill. If you have to sell your dream home, just eat the cost and move on: Flee to a different neighborhood, school district, city, state, or even country.
Well, what happens if the globalists get their way and there are no more countries?
The answer is simple. Build a starship and find another habitable planet elsewhere in the cosmos. Granted, that’s easier said than done. If that answer doesn’t work for you, then it’ll be necessary to take a stand at long last and stop the globalists and those in service to them before it comes to that. Besides, running away from problems is overrated.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
Collateral Damage: The United Kingdom’s Lockdown Files
Forgotten Roots of the Left: Fichte’s Moral & Political Philosophy, Part III
Yes, the Moon Landing Was Real
Nothing Is True, Everything Is Possible
Lipton Matthews Interviews Beau Albrecht about MLK
How to Prepare for an Emergency
Whittaker Chambers: The Quaker Who Exposed Communism in the US, Part 1
A lot of the politically subversive secret societies are simply useless and forgotten now. They were an instrument to obtain power and promote subversion (like in the French Revolution), but now that they have the political power the promotion of subversion is through more “official channels”, and those societies are relics of the past
In example, what are freemasons today? A bunch of senile men playing halloween.
The (((New World Order))) has been around several decades now, and they are continually trying to refine their control:
1.) They want all whites to marry a non-white.
2.) They want a one-world currency.
3.) They want a one-word language.
4.) They want the dissolution of all borders.
5.) They want all armed forces (of any consequence) placed under the control of the united nations.
Was that a typo? If it was a deliberate pun it’s close to the truth.
Whatever shit language they concoct might as well be a “one word”. When the peasants couldn’t read they were easier to control. I’ve got a feeling that’s the direction were slowly moving in. It explains the degradation of American public schools. I found a statistic that like 80% of American black students graduate high school with only an 8th grade reading level. And we’re supposed to emulate these people… People need to turn off the Netflix and pick up a meaningful book.
People are much, much easier to control today with all the education they have, than in the past when only a few were literate. Just look at how all the educated masses fell for the covid hysteria.
Number 3 is a typo, I meant “one-world,” not “one-word.”
Not quite sure if I got the bottom line of that long article.
Since generally I appreciate the insights of the handsome Mr. Albrecht, I cannot believe that this time the takeaway is reduced to
– not all past conspiracies are still around and powerful,
– we should hug all Zionists “if they’d just stop doing” what the are doing,
– “Zionist types who cause significant trouble are but a small subset of the Jewish population”
and telling us the wet dreams of Ben Gurion.
Has he been in Tel Aviv recently?
No, I haven’t been to Tel Aviv. (I understand that they have a nice beach, though.) Anyway, the little guy isn’t the problem here. The major point of contention isn’t about their religion or ethnicity – it’s about behavior. Unfortunately, they don’t see how the misdeeds of some major bad characters are ruining their reputation as a whole.
Poor accuracy from the beginning, so I stopped reading. Presidents who were not masons: Lincoln, Garfield, Kennedy; Coolidge (not certain).
Thomas Jefferson not a mason. Frederick II, Bismarck, Amadeus, Herder, Goethe were not involved masons, Bonaparte (Napoleon I) highly unlikely was mason.
Not getting the membership 100% correct of one single group briefly mentioned in a 3-part 10,000 word essay does not constitute poor accuracy.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment