BBC discusses the New World Order

The meeting was part of the process led by the US to create a new international world order based on the rule of law, which also led to the creation of the United Nations and the strengthening of other international organisations.

The delegates focused on two key issues: how to establish a stable system of exchange rates, and how to pay for rebuilding the war-damaged economies of Europe.

And they established two international organisations to deal with these problems.

The International Monetary Fund was set up to enforce a set of fixed exchange rates that were linked to the dollar.
View of Wall St from 1929
The Wall Street crash led to a decade of protectionism

Countries in balance of payments difficulties could receive short-term help from the IMF to avoid devaluation, and it could sanction changes in exchange rates when necessary.

Full story:
news.bbc.co.uk...

Nice find. Sad thing is, the paper money we have come to call money, are actually IOU's - scary though since they abolished the gold standard.

S&F - thought this would have had more comments.



[edit on 25-12-2008 by MCoG1980]

Here they're not talking about the New World Order in with how it has to do with conspiracy theories. They're just using the term New World Order as a phrase. I've come to recognize that politicians only are referring to the one world Government as a system of World Governance but they use the term New World Order just to talk about the players. Not about the World Government itself.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Here they're not talking about the New World Order in with how it has to do with conspiracy theories. They're just using the term New World Order as a phrase. I've come to recognize that politicians only are referring to the one world Government as a system of World Governance but they use the term New World Order just to talk about the players. Not about the World Government itself.

so when someone on MSM TV or radio like George Bush Senior, Gary Hart, Joe Biden, Gordon Brown says the phrase "New World Order" it's completely entirely different and separate than the phrase "New World Order " that people use in the public ???/ riiiiight.

some people like Alex Jones talk about it as a phrase for "the people pushing the NWO agenda" as simply "The New World Order" .. but this BBC mention of it takes nothing away from the actuality what it is. "A Big Idea" .. an ideology for world governance.

and it's coming whether you like it or not.
-

reply to post by prevenge


Yes that is precisely what I'm saying. I read a book a while ago that used the term New World Order to describe a new international order that wasn't in conspiracy theories terms. As I was saying the new international order is the idea of the new world which is different from the old world, and the new international order will set the stage for the world government, but the two ideas are different things. A new world order isn't always used to describe a world government while many times it is. So... that's all I was saying.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by prevenge

 

Yes that is precisely what I'm saying. I read a book a while ago that used the term New World Order to describe a new international order that wasn't in conspiracy theories terms. As I was saying the new international order is the idea of the new world which is different from the old world, and the new international order will set the stage for the world government, but the two ideas are different things. A new world order isn't always used to describe a world government while many times it is. So... that's all I was saying.

Either way,it's used as designating a "world order" separate from that which is place now...
Don't fool yourself by trying to complicate it so much.
It's the same thing. When "real people" outside the "conspiracy culture" .. say the term.. they mean exactly what it means.

you're like.. "nonono it's a DIFFERENT New World Order.. NOT the one all those CRAZY people have been talking about for so long.. It CANT'T beee!!! now all the REAL LIFE CREDIBLE MAINSTREAM POLITICIANS ARE SAYING IT OOOOH NOOOOO cant be cant be cant be the same.. it's a "different" NWO yyeaah thats the ticket! a diiifferent oneee...

phew safe now.. drool.... deuuuuuuuhhh.... drooolll..."



-

NWO = NWO. There is no difference.

The question that should be asked is just what is the NWO, is it here already, and who is it comprised of?

Ultimately it is those with the money that shall rule the world. Everyone else are just puppets.

When the MSM start talking about the NWO as a subject in its own right, you can be sure the NWO is already moving onto the next phase...

Europe is hailed as the start. USA already exists, but I'm a bit more skeptical of the NAU (I haven't been able to determine if that really exists yet).

If the NAU is real, and formed shortly, all that is left is for Europe to get together with the leader(s) of the NAU, and possibly China, and you've got most of the world population. Europe is already doing a fine job of taking individual countries rights (and identity) away. They call them "Member States", they all have the same currency, and everyone is a European, not German, French, Italian, etc...

NWO is certainly in the making. Count on it.

S&F!

[edit on 26-12-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by prevenge


I do not deny that the nations behind the term "New World Order" are the same as the ones behind the world government. I'm just saying usually when people talk about a world order they're just talking about the nations in a sort of hierarchal sense. That's at least how I understand it. I also believe there are people who use the term in the context of world domination but I don't believe most do. Like I said, it is obvious when politicians around the world are talking about a world government, it is less obvious when they are talking about a world government when they use the phrase new world order.