In a March 26th report for Haaretz, Adam Abrams defines the new world order:

What does “new world order” mean? There are two distinct variations. Both expressions - a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power and the advent of a cryptocratic or totalitarian world government - have relevance.

The global geopolitical climate is changing rapidly and appears to be on the verge of a realignment. This has become more apparent since the start of the world financial crisis, which finds its roots in the U.S. economic downturn.

So how would a new world order emerge? It seems that the global population would only be willing to accept the implementation of a new world order, in either form, in the event of a major global crisis, such as the complete economic collapse of the United States of America.

Which one we get, however (”a new period of history” or “cryptocratic or totalitarian world government”) is entirely up to the string-pullers. More ominously: both definitions aren’t exactly mutually exclusive, are they?

Tags: One World Government

This entry was posted on Monday, April 6th, 2009 at 9:23 am and is filed under New World Order. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.