Such "speed" and variability stories the end of XX - the beginning of the XXI centuries allows you to thoroughly edit, or re-rewrite the script of the play called “New World Order”. At the same time the velocity of history enables both suggest that for many events worth a certain motive (covert or overt) force which claims to control of the globe, and to deny such "conspiracy" of the idea of the backstage world government, successfully and at the same time modest acts as a multi-armed puppeteer in the geopolitical arena.
Americans who see their country is not only the flagship of democracy, but also a global hegemon, often presents many analysts to "fist" of the new world order, the striker for securing its hegemony under the guise of protecting "American values" where national governments are stubbornly trying to maintain independence. Often to the United States to strengthen the power of the geopolitical "fist" scriptwriters join the futurists NATO. Iraq and Libya - the latest examples of making modern democratic history; Iran and Syria are expected by many to be examples from the history of the near future.
How do the Americans themselves see the new world order? We can answer this question by flipping through the American pages on the Internet.
* * *
I. The Great Islamic Conspiracy Conquers the West
Richard T. Hughes, Professor Emeritus of Religion, Director of the Anabaptist Institute, author of the famous book “Christian America and the Kingdom of God” (2009), in the article “Revelation, Revolutions and the Tyrannical New World Order” published in "The Huffington Post" in February last year, he expressed a very curious opinion about the variability of the perception of the very idea of a “new world order” in American society, especially after September 11 of 2001. Interestingly, the author draws parallels between NMP and religious apocalyptic "end of the world."
At the beginning of the article, Hughes states that it is not a religious idea that has a big potential for the formation of a negative global policy, but the concept of a “new world order” - an old idea that received a new impetus at the height of the Middle East revolutions.
Supporters of this idea, according to Hughes, have been arguing for many years that the idea of a new world order is characterized by a hypothesis about a tyrannical all-planetary government that shattered freedom, democracy and Christianity throughout the world.
At the same time, over the years, Hughes notes, the Christians imagined that the antichrist, the “man of sin” or the “beast,” who would defeat the saints according to the biblical text of Revelation, would rule under the new world order.
However, who is this antichrist who will crush the righteous, exalt the wicked and rule the earth?
Hughes writes that over the centuries, believers have seen many politicians as an antichrist, or "beast,". For example, half a century ago, many believed that the Antichrist was incarnated in the USSR and the communist bloc of states that tried to construct such a world on the entire planet.
However, after September 11 2011, the vacant seat of the Antichrist has taken the Islamic faith. Hughes cites the opinion of the President of the National Association of Evangelicals, dated 2003 year, according to which for many conservative Christians "Muslims have become the modern equivalent of the evil empire."
And now, in the midst of revolutions that overrun the Middle East, experts and preachers find in these revolutions a “great Islamic conspiracy”, started to “conquer the West”, and at the same time crush once and for all the Jewish and Christian religions - and further into their own pleasure to rule the world.
And millions of Americans, notes with irony bile Hughes, as sponges absorb every word.
Fox News commentator Glenn Beck is one of the preachers of the “new world order”. When the Egyptian revolution was in full swing, Beck categorically stated: "You can see the beginning of a new world order."
Millions of Muslims around the world, says Hughes, are trying to find logic in such statements. After all, Islam, as they believe, contributes to the establishment of peace and understanding. In addition, Hughes continues, the revolutions in the Middle East seek to raise freedom and democracy, and not the tyranny of a single world government.
Developing the theme of combining NMPs and religions, Richard T. Hughes notes: if the “new world order” is a rhetoric aimed at slandering the Muslim faith, then at the same time there is also slander of the Christian faith in this idea. The truth is this, says Hughes: “The new world order” in the definition of people like Glenn Beck has no biblical basis at all. In fact, the author continues, this idea is not only non-biblical, it is anti-biblical and fundamentally anti-Christian.
And Hughes explains in detail and in detail why he came to this conclusion. Without going into details, we can reduce his reasoned explanation to the following: there is only one phrase in the New Testament, at least remotely analogous to the theme of the “new world order”, about which scientists and preachers periodically warn about, is a phrase from Revelation, 21, 1: "... a new sky and a new earth." The meaning of this phrase is not at all tyrannical, but “comforting,” Hughes writes, because the author of the book of Revelation wrote the text at the end of the first century, when Christians were subjected to torture and persecution by the Roman Empire. And he wrote the book for only one reason, says the author: urging Christians to keep their faith - even under the most severe persecution.
“And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more; neither crying, nor crying, nor sickness will be anymore ..., ”Hughes quotes the text of Revelation further, thus showing what the“ new heaven and new earth ”leads to.
In addition, the author continues, the comforting message of the book of Revelation consistent with the comforting message of the entire text of the New Testament. The “kingdom of God” brings justice to the oppressed, food to the hungry, clothes naked and peace to those who grieve.
Such a kingdom is hardly equivalent to the threatening NWO, which Glenn Beck likes to say, putting everything on its head. This kingdom is opposed in its essence to all that “political order” that takes place in modern America - just as it did in Ancient Rome.
If the kingdom of the world exalts the rich, the kingdom of God will exalt the poor.
If the kingdom of the world bears the oppression and injustice of men, then the kingdom of God brings peace and comfort.
If the kingdom of the world is unfair to imprison political opponents, then the kingdom of God would deliver them.
And if the earthly kingdoms seek to control the world by swinging a sword, then the kingdom of God will bring peace to the whole world - by the power of selfless love.
And now - about the end of the world. This topic could not ignore the author, conducting a parallel between the secular and religious world order ideas.
For those, Hughes writes, who shout the loudest about the coming “new world order”, the coming tyranny and oppression are usually associated with the end of the world, which is also the beginning of the NWO.
For example, John Hagee, a well-known Christian pastor often warns of doomsday and the coming of a new world order. Appearing on the Glenn Beck show, this same Hagi explained to the whole world that the Bible tells us that we live "at the end of days." That whole 10 signs. However, Hughes speaks offensively, this preacher was hardly able to concretize the signs. Rather, these are not signs, but “signs,” about which the preacher said in order for the viewers to press the imagination.
After explaining some passages from the Bible, Hughes writes that if Christians spend more time living beyond some gloomy visions and less time speculating about when the end can come, “the world will be the best place for all of us.”
Finally, Richard T. Hughes could not get past the connection between the NMP and world politics. He writes: “... we must strive for the statement with which we started this article, namely: that it is not a religious idea that has great potential for the formation of a negative global policy, but the very idea of a“ new world order ”.
As we saw, the author says further, the idea of a “new world order” is alien to the Bible, but its religious meaning is still rooted in the views of the 19th century British wandering preacher John Nelson Darby (1800-1882).
According to Darby, the author writes, the antichrist is a satanic figure who will tyrannize the world for seven years, especially being angry with the Jews and the state of Israel. According to Darby, this is the seven-year “great tribulation” period.
At the end of these seven years, the forces of anti-christ will gather from all over the world to make a final attempt to destroy the Jewish people in the great battle of Armageddon.
True Christians, however, will be spared the bloodshed and violence, as Jesus would save them. True believers (as presented by well-known journalist Bill Moyers) will be delivered to heaven, where, sitting at the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents writhing from suffering, covered with ulcers and boils.
But who is the antichrist?
Previously, Hughes reminds, theologians identified the tyrannical figure of the antichrist with the Soviet Union. But after 11 September, they became convinced that the antichrist is closely associated with the Arab world and the Muslim religion.
Here again a parallel arises, apparently causing ecstasy among other theologians: Islam supposedly represents the core of the tyrannical “new world order”. That is why the theologians, preoccupied with the idea of the NWO, welcome the war with the Islamic world, and global politics is moving in a “deeply negative direction.”
Bill Moyers, says Hughes, conveyed the words of ecstatic theologians, who believe that “the war with Islam in the Middle East is not something that they are afraid of, but something that is welcomed. This is the main fire on the road to salvation. ”
These theologians are uniting in the United States to preach their ideas — as a tool that “God will use — to hit the antichrist and the enemies of the truth.”
The war in Iraq was considered in the United States not so long ago to be the “center of recent events”. Tim La Hay, the author of this opinion and co-author of many bestsellers about the end of the world, according to Hughes, provided "powerful" support for the American invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation.
Great concern to Hughes is the fact that ecstasy theologians "opens the door" of the nuclear accident.
Indeed, after World War II, theologians increasingly began to identify Armageddon with a nuclear war, thereby drawing a parallel between biblical prophecy and the prospect of nuclear annihilation.
Hughes repeated here, proving that hatred and violence - not what is preached in the Bible. And theological ecstasies about the “new world order” not only have nothing in common with the Bible, but in general are anti-biblical. After all, the vision of the “new heaven and new earth” does not bring hatred, but selfless love, not violence, but lasting peace.
American Christians, Hughes believes, could contribute to an increase in world peace.
But for this, they will have to first abandon their passion for the “new world order” - an idea alien to the biblical text.
Ii. About walking through a minefield and a giant fruit fly
If the honored professor of religion Richard T. Hughes wrote about the theologians who have fallen into ecstasy, then Brandon Smith tried to figure out what is more in the concept of the NWP - reality or paranoia.
B. Smith is the author of the “New World Order: Paranoia or Reality?”, Published on 2 in May on 2012 on Alt-Market.com (translation source - Mixednews.ru).
“The expression“ New World Order, ”he writes,“ is so charged with explosive assumptions and conjectures that its use by journalists has become a kind of walking through a minefield. Many researchers (and some of the mainstream) have attempted to write and talk about this very real socio-political ideology in an open and research manner, in understandable language and based on supporting information, only in order to be attacked, ridiculed, or completely ignored, even before , as they had at least the opportunity to offer attention to the results of their work. The reason is quite simple: the majority of the general public was mentally vaccinated even whisper uttered terminology. In other words, she was trained instinctively to demonstrate a negative reaction to such a discussion, without even knowing why.
There is on the website of the Library of Congress, in the map section, one card that does not give rest to many conspiracy theorists. This map hit the library in 1942 year. A certain Maurice Gomberg (Maurice Gomberg) from Philadelphia printed in 1942 a map project of the New World Order after the end of the war.
To some extent, this training is carried out by hanging on the researchers of the New World Order the labels of "conspiracy therapists" (synonymous with the word "psycho"), clinging to fantasies in a desperate attempt to attract "attention" or disoriented individuals who try to apply creative logic to insanely chaotic the world circling in a whirlwind on the outskirts of the great emptiness of coincidence and coincidence ... "
There is another circumstance that leads, according to the author, “to dropping NMP research from the threshold”. People refuse to listen to research on NMPs because they are afraid to openly accept ideas that are not shared by the majority. They are not shared by the majority because there is no open discussion of the NWO.
The author, who is undoubtedly at the forefront, does not hesitate to express regret. He regretted that "the bulk of men and women are led to a slave life, not a leading one."
That is why accusations are raging on those who mention the "new world order." All of them tease paranoid.
For example, “think tanks and propaganda machines” (for example, the Southern Center for the Legal Protection of Poverty - SPLC) take full advantage of the “anthill mentality”. They may subject to indiscriminate criticism any article in which the phrase “new world order” is mentioned at least once. “The notorious SPLC note,” the author writes, “is about the article“ Guardians of the oath ”(organization of former and current military personnel and law enforcement officers of the United States who believe that they should defend the US Constitution in case of violation by the government; note mixednews.ru), which highlights plans for the Ministry of Defense at the invitation of Russian soldiers on American soil for the training. Due to the fact that the article dares to mention the “NMP”, the SPLC is in a hurry to come to the commonplace conclusion that the “Guardians of the oath” is “paranoid”.
This "journalism" Brandon Smith contemptuously calls "yellow." In his opinion, one should step over prejudices and directly ask oneself the question: what is this NWO?
The author not only asked himself this question, but also answered it.
The expression “new world order”, he says, “made its public debut at the beginning of the 20th century and was interpreted by numerous political and business elites decades before the emergence of“ conspiracy ”. Smith further explains: “The liberation movement has always defined NMPs as concerted actions by elitist organizations that resort to political manipulation, economic sabotage, and even war to rally global power in the hands of an unelected and unreputable governing body. The goal: complete coagulation at a certain moment of the sovereignty of the individual, the state and the nation. ”
Then B. Smith quotes a lot of quotes about the new world order - starting from mentioning world socialism and hating the new world order and Rockefeller’s famous statement in his memoirs (“Some even believe that we (the Rockefellers) are part of a secret political group, working against the vital interests of the United States, and characterize my family and me as “internationalists” who have colluded with other groups around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure of the one world, if you like. If the accusation is in this, then I plead guilty, and I am proud of it ”) and ending with the words of Richard Gardner, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, operating as if not with fantastic ideas about the future, but reality : “A new world order will have to be built rather from the bottom up than from the top down ... blurring it in parts, bypassing national sovereignty, will achieve much more than an outdated frontal attack” (1974).
From the words of many famous people, the author of the article concludes: we are not dealing with an illusion at all. The NWO, in essence, is “a very frank and freely recognized sociopolitical ideology that a certain influential group of chosen people adheres to. Branding it a "conspiracy theory" - is absurd. "
Smith cites the existence of capitalist and socialist organizations, political parties, Greenpeace, the corporate lobby, and even cleansing in Stalinist Russia as arguments that the NMP is a reality. All this, according to him, is the essential forces that have constructed the present epoch.
(Note in parentheses that if Stalin’s sweepers can still be attributed to representatives of “elitist organizations”, then Greenpeace falls under such a definition with a strong stretch. Although, in principle, any lobby somehow “constructs an era.” Another thing is does such a lobby form part of the “new” world order, or dies safely along with its time, remaining in textbooks and historical books).
The uniqueness of the new world order, according to Smith, lies in the “hidden nature of the methods and the complexity of the structure”. That is, the author loves the topic of conspiracies. He doesn’t tell the readers anything interesting about the conspiracies, but he notes in passing that for those who are in the ranks of the New World Order, “left” and “right”, Democrats and Republicans are “absolutely meaningless concepts”.
After all, it’s not without reason that the “freedom-loving people,” the author writes, are networked, such as Guardians of the Oath, “pay attention to the fact that the foundations of the Defense Ministry’s program to train Russian soldiers on American soil have to do with NMP ...” Yes, only Sadly B. Smith, the trouble is that the "guardians" do not know either the situation or the history of the issue, and therefore are not prepared "for understanding the degree of imminent danger." (That's it! People do not have enough information, and everyone would imagine that they are threatened not only in the near future, but already, one might say, from yesterday. Even from the day before yesterday). “If they only knew about the programs,” Smith writes, “similar to those based on the Partnership for Security and Prosperity Agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico, designed to dissolve the sovereign functions of the three states in the military and economic sphere ... "
Such an "mixing" of countries clearly does not like the author, who sees everywhere the threat of conspiracies.
“What about the recent training of the Iranian dissident group Mojahedin e-Hulk (MEK),” he exclaims, “at a closed facility at the Department of Energy in Nevada?”
And this is not to mention the training of Russian troops on American territory.
All clear; these are the machinations of the global elite, because “mixing” can hardly serve the interests of the American people. And if the global elite is implicated (of course, secretly), it is promoting its next interests, rising to the next step of the New World Order.
The author concludes the article by saying that those who publicly oppose the NWP “are accused of paranoid chatter”, but “the elitists who praise him are praised by praise”. (It is curious how they praise him, if the very mention of the NWP is already taboo, and causes accusations of paranoia?)
The author writes: “The less we care about what others may think of us, the more we can devote ourselves to the cause of truth. In the end, when it comes to issues of principle and issues affecting survival, it is much better to be “abnormal” and right than “normal” and wrong ”.
So, according to Brandon Smith, the NWM does not only exist (and note in brackets a long time ago — so long ago that it is strange that this order is still considered “new” in the world; probably its secret supporters and elites promoting it and implementing, not interested in giving their global ideas a precise definition), but is progressing.
And the day is not far when they will unite, integrating under the shadow of a powerful government, not only the USA, Canada and Mexico, but Russia and Iran will be drawn into the new consolidated bloc.
For complete cosmopolitan happiness in this friendly company lacks only Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Syria.
In the appendage would like to bring the opinion of James Jackson, who in the article with the angry title "Conspiracy - sucks" ("The Huffington Post" from 3 August 2011. poisonously mocks all supporters of the “world conspiracy” (there are not so many of them in the world, as B. Smith mentioned above thinks. And they are not at all ashamed to talk about the conspiracy aloud).
Once in a cab with a driver, Jackson was very annoyed at how the driver spoke about his fears and how he built theories about power struggles and threats from the “new world order”. Jackson entered into a dispute with him and began to pour counterarguments, but in the end the driver grew suspicious that Comrade Jackson himself was no comrade, but part of a global conspiracy. Parts which are "in league with the enemy."
Perhaps, ironically, J. Jackson laments, it hurt me that I pretended to be talking in my watch.
And last week, the author continues, I was again in the cab with a driver, a man who began to build his guesses on the basis of fairy tales of Nigerian origin - that people could turn into bats and fly. Moreover, the driver saw it with his own eyes.
"Conspiracy," Jackson writes, "everywhere, it is caused by paranoia and is fanned by a halo of secrecy on the Internet, it preys on trust and stupidity and holds millions in captivity." A small man, according to Jackson, experiencing failure and being disappointed, can always blame the system and the dark forces. The logical explanation is not always suitable, and accidents - does not happen. So all the reasons - in the conspiracy.
A significant part of the modern conspiracy theory, the author writes further, derives from the Cold War, The Three Days of the Condor, fear and distrust of the government generated by Vietnam and Watergate.
Adds fears, according to Jackson, and "evangelical religion" (its apocalyptic part).
Most of us, Jackson says, are just confused. But most of us do not believe that Elvis is alive, or that Mother Teresa was a giant fruit fly.
Iii. "Big Zero" geopolitics
The Journal "Foreign Policy" 30 on April 2012 was published an interview taken by David Rothkopf with Jan Bremmer. The interview was about G-Zero (“Big Zero”): after all, Bremmer recently published a book with the intriguing title “Every Nation is for Itself: Winners and Losers in the Big Zero World”.
“Ian Bremmer is a force of nature. He built a successful global business consulting - Eurasia Group. He is a respected writer and commentator. He is blogging. He is in tweets. He is the movement of the globe. And his latest book - “Every nation for itself: the winners and losers in the world of G-Zero” - has already deserved a great influence. He's a guy with a strong research wisely, and he laughs easily. I love him. And one of the reasons why I like him is that you can agree with him and remain his friend. ”
Here's how Rothkopf praises his friend Bremmer.
However, it is mostly that Rothkopf and Bremmer do not agree. If the interviewee insists on G-Zero, the interviewer believes that in the future the hegemon will remain on the planet, and his name will be the United States.
However, Ian Bremmer, speaking of geopolitics, says that already now on the planet "there is no global leadership." After World War II, there was a rather long period of globalization, “obviously under the leadership of the United States”: the world was ruled from the American point of view, by American priorities, capital and institutions. Bremmer calls the G-7, the World Bank, the IMF and the UN Security Council.
But now, according to Bremmer, the world is in a “period of creative destruction.” Moreover, in the future there will be no “global institutions that the United States would lead”. The concept of the “Big Twenty”, Bremmer believes, is important, but it did not give “significant progress in concluding global agreements on trade, financial and foreign exchange regulation or on any other issues for which the world needs answers.” We, the analyst summarizes, are in G-Zero.
Bremmer begins with world trade, in which the United States is losing ground. Then he speaks of the "decline of the United States", apparently in a geopolitical sense - that is, as a player on the world stage. Bremmer’s main argument is here: America will not forcibly remove the Syrian president from Bashar al-Assad, at least right now. Further, the United States cannot take the lead on a global climate agreement. Or another possible bombing of Iran: this or that does not occur, also, apparently, proves the decline of America. However, Bremmer says, G-Zero is a much more complex concept than the decline of America alone and everything connected with it.
An increasingly significant portion of the US population, Bremmer points out, believes that Americans do not benefit from globalization, or they simply feel that the United States should not play the role of a “global policeman.”
Previously, organizations such as the IMF, the World Bank, and NATO played a much clearer role in defining global world architecture than today. The turning point came in 2008, with a financial crisis. This very crisis, according to Bremmer, focused both America and its allies on problems within the country, which gave “courage” to emerging markets that had already emerged from the financial crisis. In addition, the values that the United States adhered to as a leader were questioned. These values, Bremmer gently remarks, were in some sense not so honest and could be violated - and few were suitable for “evangelization” in countries such as China or Russia.
The New World Order, by Bremmer, - more in the future. What we are experiencing now, he says, is not yet a new world order, but the destruction of the old. The new order has not yet manifested itself.
Bremmer speaks of the rise of China, who "wants to have a veto." The Chinese "want to be able to say:" No, we don’t like these rules and institutions, or norms, or politics, which are now dictated by the Americans. " But they says Bremmer, absolutely refuse to take responsibility for themselves. That is why China is opposed to the idea of the Big Two. Bremmer says that Russians and Chinese, and other peoples can have a regional influence, for example, in the situation with Iran, but at the moment this influence is negative. This is “not active and not constructive influence”.
Bremmer does not believe that the geopolitical Big Zero is sustainable. And it does not even believe that such a “zero” promises a solid order to the world. But how to replace it? Here is the question of questions. And this topic is still open for discussion, he says. China? USA? Maybe European countries? And India? Maybe other major players that matter in the international arena?
Bremmer claims that earlier, before the 2008 crisis of the year, US-China relations had a “zero amount of elements”. So say, win-win relationship. But the crisis has changed everything. Now, US corporations are more likely to have problems with access to the world market. They compete with stronger Chinese state property. Then comes China’s security relationship with the United States. Here Bremmer speaks not so much about the Middle East, as about the East China and South China seas. After all, the US has moved the "core" of geopolitics towards the Asia-Pacific region. And Bremmer describes this "Asian core" as follows: "We welcome the peaceful rise of China as long as they behave as we want." But if they do not behave as we want, says Bremmer, then our core needs insurance against risks. This geopolitical hedge is terribly similar, says Bremmer, to “Chinese containment.” Of course, he continues, the Chinese understand this. And such relationships create tension in countries such as the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, and even Myanmar. So says Ian Bremmer.
Finally, he says, is cybersecurity. From the point of view of industrial espionage and cyber attacks of US government and private institutions, this is an area where the war between the United States and China is actually going on.
There are, of course, the analyst says, such aspects of US-China relations that are and will remain interdependent. If the US economy to explode, it will be terrible for China; almost the opposite is true. At the broadest level, one can even talk about the possible mutually guaranteed economic destruction of the two countries.
Now - Europe.
Bremmer believes that with the new world order, Europe will retain player status on the world stage. But only the "corresponding" status. After all, now there are a number of emerging market countries - especially India in the medium term - that are going to play a more significant role in geopolitics, including because China will face many serious internal challenges.
It is possible and this alignment on the world map, in which each large country will play a certain role - but geopolitical in the full sense of the word, and regional, acting in its region. As for Europe as a regional player, we must remember: it is not a country, and its ability to act on the world stage is limited. Unless you believe, says Bremmer, we are really going to get a unified European government. The probability of this is very low, the analyst believes, over the next 5-10 years.
Therefore, it is very interesting what kind of regional world order it will be, how much it will be fragmented, what it will be like and on what basis to act. Who will win it? Who will lose?
In the new world order, Bremmer sees such a key quality as “non-binding”. Once there is no leader, there is no former responsibility. And “non-obligation”, according to Bremmer, becomes very important in the new world - it opens up possibilities for hedging (risk insurance). Bremmer even calls this quality the “core of the state.”
Hence, he concludes that under the “Big Zero” position, volatility will be much higher in the United States, because many will turn to them on security issues.
The same with Europe. Crisis Europe has already shown what the responsibility is pouring out: look, says Bremmer, what happened to the Italian government.
Then, at the request of the interviewer, Bremmer looked into the future - ten years ahead. What did he see there, what new world order?
A manifestation of the world order under the G-Zero scenario will be a greater number of conflicts that will not be agreed upon by the major powers. There will be more questions about security in the Middle East. We now see the “Big Zero” in Syria, and Bremmer suspects that in the Middle East will have to see much more. Much more than a zero amount will have to be seen in the confrontation between the US and China in the APR.
Bremmer is convinced that Russia in the world of the future will restore strong direct power over "its periphery."
In Latin America, the regional influence of large countries, especially Brazil, will also play a role.
Regarding BRICS, Bremmer is skeptical, although he notes that development is also possible for this organization.
For successful future development, Bremmer advises countries to be flexible and adapt to a changing geopolitical environment. Over time, the analyst believes, government leaders will be more interested in being able to “turn” - when they are given the opportunity to achieve strategic benefits.
* * *
Thus, in the United States, there are three approaches to understanding the “new world order”: religious and political, mixed largely on parallels with biblical scenes, including dubious, replicated in the media; “Conspiracy”, in which all the evils and misfortunes, including accidents, are attributed to the omnipotent secret world government, which is about to unite America with Russia the other day, and Canada with Mexico; analytical, based on an analysis of geopolitical realities and a rather restrained prediction about what the world will be in the coming decades. This latter approach is characterized by a “regional” vision of the game in the political arena — one in which there is no clear leader in the world.
Observed and translated by Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
- especially for topwar.ru