Are these correct views, or are they intentional deceptions? Let’s take a look.
Until the late 19th century, liberals were generally the group of people who were primarily concerned with the freedom of the individual, while conservatives favored leaving most of the power in the hands of the state, where it had resided, for the most part, for centuries. The desire for freedom was on the rise at this time, and those who envisioned a powerful central state made up of the intelligent elite to control the stupid masses saw that their rise to power hinged on having the support of these same masses. Rather than being honest about their objectives, knowing that this approach would fail, they pretended to be freedom loving liberals fighting for the freedom of the masses. This tactic worked so well for them that today most people mistakenly identify liberals as socialists or something similar. As a result, the term classic liberal has had to be put into use to distinguish between the real liberal (classic liberal) and the false liberal (liberal or progressive). The propaganda of these false liberals, the power hungry elitists, has been so amazingly successful that their supporters still believe that following them is the path to freedom. The truth is that it is the path to a modern version of serfdom.
A similar thing happened to the phrase “A New World Order.” This phrase was coined to celebrate the modern birth of the republic as a replacement for the monarchies which were so prevalent at the time. This idea was closely associated with what we now call classic liberalism, not much different than modern libertarianism in many regards. The same type of elitist which had co-opted the term “liberal” also hijacked the phrase “new world order.” This hijacking, though, has become much more complex over time.
The elitists were aware that as long as there exists in the world an area which embraces freedom for the individual, central authority will fail. This version of the new world order involves the expansion of the central authority across the whole world to eliminate the existence of freedom and the danger that the subjects of the elite states would see and desire that freedom.
The other way that the phrase is used is also a construct of the elitists who wish to control the masses. In much the same way as the definition of liberal was changed, they assigned the phrase “a new world order” to a mysterious group of powerful subversive who were said to be opposed to the ideal (the false ideal) of the freedoms promised by the elite. By this means, they could scapegoat any who were opposed to their agenda. This was so successful that today those who actually are opposed to the elitists have begun using this phrase to point at each other and at groups which in reality do not even exist, all the while not realizing that they are being fed much of their information by the elusive elitists themselves.
Sun-tzu said, “one who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be endangered in a hundred engagements. One who does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes be victorious, sometimes meet with defeat. One who knows neither the enemy or himself will invariably be defeated in every engagement.” This concept applies to us as well. In the politics of freedom, we must identify those who oppose freedom and liberty, no matter how deeply they seek to conceal themselves. The lies and deceptions are created by brilliant people who are incredibly adept at misdirection and disinformation, so we can not afford to accept anything at face value anymore, we must research everything for ourselves to find the truth.
Do not accept anything in accordance with the attached label, look deeper to the hidden intention.
As a post script, I feel that it is a good reminder that the phrase on the reverse of the Seal of the United States, “novus ordo seclorum,” is not correctly translated as “new world order,” but rather as “new order of the ages.”