"New World Order" – two approaches (Example refugee policy)
The greatest two future scenarios of a „New World Order”- respectively of dictatorial forms of rule are described in the two novels „1984“ by the English author George Orwell and “Brave New World“ by the British author Aldous Huxley.
Those concerned about a future global government rule argue about who of the two is right. Chris Hedges, an American journalist, author and Presbyterian pastor came to the following conclusion...
License: Creative Commons License: Attribution CC BY
19.01.2016 | www.kla.tv/7553
The greatest two future scenarios of a „New World Order”- respectively of dictatorial forms of rule are described in the two novels „1984“ by the English author George Orwell and “Brave New World“ by the British author Aldous Huxley. The novel “1984” which was published in 1949 describes a dictatorial surveillance and security state which controls us with cruel and brutal methods. On the contrary the novel “Brave New World”, published in 1932, describes a society which is entranced by the entertainment industry and show business, captivated by technological innovations and seduced by frenzied consumption so that it even embraces its own oppression. Those concerned about a future global government rule argue about who of the two is right. Chris Hedges, an American journalist, author and Presbyterian pastor came to the following conclusion: "It turns out Orwell and Huxley were both right. Huxley saw the first stage of our enslavement. Orwell saw the second." Society has been increasingly deprived of power – as Huxley foresaw it – through manipulating and seducing sensual impressions, cheap mass products, unlimited loans, political drama, and ongoing entertainment. Hedges concerning this: "While we were entertained, the regulations that once kept predatory corporate powers in check were dimantled, the laws that once protected us were rewritten and we were impoverished." Now that through immense debts, endless wars and greedy corporations the ruined state is almost completely bankrupt, society is moving out of the stage of manipulation through lies and illusions and into a state of obvious, total control. Hedges continued: "Orwell (...) warned of a world where books were banned. Huxley (...) warned of a world where no one wanted to read books. Orwell warned of a state of permanent war and fear. Huxley warned of a culture diverted by mindless pleasure. Orwell warned of a state where every conversation and thought was monitered and dissent was brutally punished. Huxley warned of a state where a population preoccupied by trivia and gossip, no longer cared about truth or information. Orwell saw us frightened into submission. Huxley saw us seduced into submission. But Huxley, we are discovering, was merely the prelude to Orwell. Huxley understood the process by which we would be complicit in our own enslavement. Orwell understood the enslavement." This is how Hedges describes the different - and seemingly opposing - approaches of Huxley and Orwell. Both supposedly foresaw different, opposing approaches which in the end lead up to the same form of “new world order” government. The question as to whether these two scenarios go hand in hand, or follow each other as first step and endphase, we’ll just leave open. The important thing to realize is that two apparently differing methods can both lead to the same goal of a “new world order”. Let’s look at the Refugee problematic for example: In 2015 alone, millions of refugees swarmed into Europe. About 1.1 million came to Germany. Two reactions are evident: 1. The so-called “welcoming culture”: all refugees should be unconditionally recieved and the boat is no where near being full. This approach is especially being promoted by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Problems are played down, blamed on other circumstances, belittled, swept under the carpet or extenuated with the words: “We’ll make it!” “Political correctness” demands not reporting about refugees in a bad light. The second reaction is in opposition to this “welcoming culture”: problems and scandals with the new arrivals are uncovered, often correctly but sometimes injustly or strongly exaggerated, in order to stir up fear. Not only users and bloggers posted their displeasure in the social networks but also mainstream media reported repeatedly about scandalous incidents. So for example Germany’s news channel N24 belonging to the Axel-Springer Corporation, one of Europe’s biggest publishing companies - they own for example the “Bild” newspaper and “Die Welt” - The World. Here a few examples of how N24 reported: from September 27th, 2015: „Hour-long brawl in refugee camp Kassel-Calden“. - „Federal minister of family affairs, Manuela Schwesig, warns about sexual abuse of children and teens in refugee centers.“ - „Criticism of Nieheim’s government continues after renters in city property are forced to evacuate - must give up homes for refugees.” - On October 5th, 2015: „Police are dealing with an increase in violent attacks. Often due to Muslims who have not learned to respect women.” - On October 6th, 2015: „Refugees order 120,000 Euros worth at online shop Zalando - Pay only a third of this!.” - „Aggressionen part of daily life in refugee centers - even murder - not even security service is safe.” It is in the nature of the matter that with the politics of more or less unconditionally taking in refugees, problems a pre-programmed. That these problems are uncovered, become issues and that solutions must be found is clearly not the question. The question that has to be addressed though is the following: are these apparently opposing approaches - on the one side the “welcoming culture” and on the other side stirring up fear and opposition against this - really working against each other or are they actually working together towards the same goal; the goal of introducing a “new world order”? The architects of the “new world order” understand well how to - first of all: goal orientedly bring up crises and social evils, secondly: to stir up emotions and fear and thirdly: to intrumentalize these goals. And what are the goals of these global strategists? The shocked and concerned people should be divide, incited against the social evils and crises, incited against the refugees and migrants, against Islam, against the own government and politicians, against the media etc. It makes no difference here if it is justified or not. The main thing is division - bringing emotions to a boil. Essential is that people feel aggitated and wake up out of their “Huxley - Brave new world - sleep” This is the point where people start to take to the streets, cannot hold back their indignation anymore, lose their nerve, or things should even get to the point of civil war - where then the dictatorship – of Orwell’s “iron fist” is supposed to be established, once and for all. As has so often been the case, peaceful and justified demonstrations will be infiltrated with violence, so that they have to be broken up - so that afterwards a ban can be put on demonstrations and meetings. The demonstrated double-strategy of the global strategists shows itself to once again be a well thought through clever move just as in the game “Nine men’s morris” in the double bind situation, where in every round a game piece of the opponent can be captured without him being able to take an effective counter-measure. Like this, with the “welcoming culture” on the one hand masses of refugees are being allowed into the county yet on the other hand when social evils resulting from this are uncovered, the next move is already planned: the social evils and crises are instrumentalized to divide those concerned, to find “scape goats”, to aggitate and scare people. When society has reached the point of total chaos and complete exhaustion, “salvation” is supposed to come from the architects of the “new world order” themselves, so that the peoples willingly allow themselves to be integrated into it.