Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091212030333/http://watch.pair.com/merovingian.html to http://watch.pair.com/merovingian.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 17 February 2018 (

Biased/slanted article intro

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) 21:36, 2 August 2021

Interesting how you characterize the left-wing interpretation as inherently "legitimate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:5178:E400:5993:4E9F:AED5:A0B8 (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I added the date to the contribution you responded to. Nobody has been interested in it for two years. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

WEF hasn't gotten the message

WEF discussion on the New World Order I know that isn't a reliable source, but when the WEF openly discusses it and says that they're trying to achieve it, then it contradicts the narrative of this article that it's a "conspiracy theory." One of the weirdest things about this topic is that Western establishment media is saying that it's a fallacy, while the WEF elites openly use the phrase in discussions about how they're trying to reorganize global governance. 108.18.156.124 (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no single, unarguable definition of New World Order. So what you think you're talking about when you say New World Order may be very different from what a particular speaker at WEF means. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems to me these people have an "ends justify the means" mentality. If one has to make lying and Deception the way to fundamentally change the world, chances are no one would want it. 174.251.209.55 (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Just as with any expansive subject there can be multiple and layered facets, interpretations, objectives, etc. Labeling the NWO as a conspiracy theory is inherently dismissive and reductionist. During the INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE THE "NEW WORLD ORDER" A RECIPE FOR WAR or PEACE! sponsored by Perdana Global Peace Foundation in 2015 there is very explicit delineation of what the NWO will consist of and how it is to be implemented: https://rairfoundation.com/flashback-former-malaysian-prime-minister-warned-elites-want-to-reduce-world-population-to-1-billion-videos/. We are currently seeing it coming to fruition via among other tactics, the WHO power grab, via which all nations will cede sovereignty to the WHO (https://jamesroguski.substack.com?utm_source=navbar&utm_medium=web&r=ez5o2) along with the civil rights of their citizens - freedom will no longer exist. Kittyflop (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

(After Edit conflict) The source of that article, the RAIR Foundation, describes itself as "a grassroots, activist and investigative organization comprised of everyday Americans leading a movement to reclaim our Republic from the network of individuals and organizations waging war on Americans, our constitution, our borders and our Judeo-Christian values." That's clearly not an objective starting position. It assumes that the corruption and evil acts they claim are happening, simply ARE happening. The fact that it claims that Mahathir Mohamad claimed that the NWO is happening, proves. nothing. Have you paid any attention to any other claims from Mahathir Mohamad? Do you know anything else about him? One obscure article in an obscure publication (we don't have an article on the RAIR Foundation) proves absolutely nothing. This is not a useful contribution to this article. HiLo48 (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed rename from 'theory' to 'theories', and removal of brackets

1. More than one theory is detailed in the article body, hence plural form may be better than singular form. One is inclined to think that there is no single, concerted, unified theory describing a (single, concerted, unified) conspiracy. 2. Why remove brackets? A reason is that the phrase 'New World Order' - in rare but notable cases - is neither a conspiracy, nor referred to by conspiracy theories, as evinced by the ordinary use of the phrase in the New world order (politics) page. Therefore, 'new world order' is a mere descriptor of the 'conspiracy theor[ies]'. Hence, we may agree that the crucial expression in the article title is 'conspiracy theory' rather than 'new world order'. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Georgia Guidestones

Someone needs to update this part under New World Order: they have been blown up. One source: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/28/1113855150/a-georgia-monument-was-destroyed-locals-blame-conspiracy-theories 72.162.228.254 (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2023

the NWO being a conspiracy theory.. its not a theory. Ronald Reagan gave a speech citing the words for a future NWO. so did bush sr. get with the facts

this isnt annedit but why ive come to see from wickedpedia. these days- wickipedia is nothing more than liberal agenda trash, hiding truth for a far left narrative.

get writers and editors who are independent, unbiased *factual* writers who write facts not this fictitious narrative 24.184.169.217 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Heart ^(talk) 18:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2023

A conspiracy just means two or more people are involved in a common goal. So a conspiracy is actually correct for this theory. 104.218.65.3 (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2023 (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. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

We must work together to build a *new world order*. This is how we can do it

It's literally the title of a WEF initiative: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/12/we-must-work-together-to-build-a-new-world-order-china-russia-us/ 86.120.128.190 (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Did you read past the title? Did you notice that the ONLY time the expression "new world order" is used is in the title of the article? Those three words on their own are harmless. It's just an expression to collectively describe the changing relationships between countries and regions in the period the article describes. It is NOT a threat to anyone or anything. It is NOT a conspiracy theory! HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It's literally the title of this article. Wikipedia article should NOT cherry-pick things that are strictly about "negative" usages". If other people use the term, the current article should at least mention it and explain the confusion, not pretend that the term is "a conspiracy theory" and nobody at the world economic forum uses it. 86.120.128.190 (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You don't get it. The article is not about those three words, it is about a certain concept which is connected with those three words. And your link contains those three words in the title, but is not about the same concept. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Theories about the WEF's "Great Reset" are linked to the New World Order theory [1], does that help? I was honestly surprised to see no mention of the WEF in this article. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 17:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I find writing about this stuff quite painful. As soon as I do some nutter or nutters will arrive with a collection of ridiculous conspiracy theories about all this. Have you had a look at our Great Reset article? The final paragraph of the lead there describes the problem well. HiLo48 (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

wow name calling, best way to have a discussion, very mature!

if it's that painful, don't do it?

good luck, peace 69.172.161.194 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

And? This article is about a conspiracy theory, and I've shown how in modern times it has been linked with conspiracy theories about the WEF and the Great Reset using a credible source (by Wikipedia's standards) known as the BBC. As the previous poster said, if it's painful, don't do it. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 16:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Denver Airport

I think that the Denver Airport should be mentioned because many people who believe this New World Order conspiracy usually cite the Denver airport's delays in building, size and large amounts of spending. Maybe a section should be added for it? BasedGigachad (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

WEF

An IP editor recently posted that the article should have a section on the World Economic Forum (WEF). The post was (correctly) removed, as it was essentially just a rant (trying to convince us of the truth of the claim). However, I do think this is something we need to consider. In recent years there has been an increasing trend for NWO conspiracy theorists to focus on their belief that the WEF is somehow tied to the NWO… and that is a trend that I think our article could mention (if for no other reason than completeness in explaining what the theorists claim). I doubt this trend rates an entire section -it is still a relatively new addition to the whole NWO zeitgeist, and thus may not (yet) be commented upon by reliable sources that analyze the shifting trends in NWO theory… but perhaps it does rate a sentence or two in passing? Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

"thus may not (yet) be commented upon by reliable sources" You are answering your own request. We can not add something without available sources. Dimadick (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

”Thus MAY not (yet) be commented upon”… but MIGHT be (I don’t know… That’s why I am asking for some discussion). I am definitely not suggesting that we add unsourced (or poorly sourced) material… just noting that we have a gap in our coverage of the topic. And since there are editors here who have a much better sense of the sourcing than I do, I am asking them to look into it. Nothing more. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a perfectly reliable source that I gave in an above section a short while before this discussion started https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-57532368 — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 16:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This response “There is a perfectly reliable source that I gave…” is within itself biased and problematic. One source is never perfect or reliable but you already knew that. This is why wiki suffers and constantly has to beg for money. You want to lie to people and spread a narrative that we with our own eyes know to be untrue. There is absolutely no conspiracy theory that millions of third world non-conforming non-contributing people have been sponsored from around the globe to relocate and break laws by illegally invading all first world countries at the exact same time. You have no integrity or ability to tell the true. You just deflect from your perfectly reliable paid source.

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/05/28/a-new-wave-of-mass-migration-has-begun Anflexboi (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This is why wiki suffers and constantly has to beg for money. Do a quick web search on Wikipedia's finances and you will find that Wikipedia is doing just fine. Wikipedia asks for donations to be independent from corporate interests.

The rest of your post is just outright nonsense and not supported by The Economist article you linked to. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)