New World Order - Actual Words used in textbook

Look what I found in a textbook. These words are from the 1997 Heinemann Country Studies Brazil Textbook by Roger Robinson, pg 38 copyright Roger Robinson.

"Brazil has changed dramatically in the last 25 years. Alongside Mexico it qualifies as a Latin American newly industrialised country. It is waiting in the wings with China and India to be part of the powerful and rich core of a new world order."

Sounds a bit like giving the game away to me, Roger Robinson. I can't believe that somebody actually said this in a textbook, even if it is a bit dated. It is also says in this textbook that Brazil has nuclear research and development centres in Sao Paulo and St. Jose dos Campos. Is this true?

What is so shocking about this? I don't get it. The term New World Order has been used several times in recent history, referring to what appeared to be a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power.

This is not the first the time term has been used in newspapers, television, speeches, etc. It is only the people who read these conspiracy web sites that start freaking out at it.

That quote you took from the "textbook" does sound like a good place to use it. It's talking about a dramatic change in political thought and balance of power.

"New World Order" was first used by people, such as former President George H. W. Bush, after the end of the Cold War. They used the term because many people felt the end of the Cold War would have dramatic effects on the international balance of power, including the hope that the end of the Cold War would usher in a new era of international co-operation through the United Nations.

It's really not that shocking the term was found in some textbook somewhere.

[edit on 4-11-2005 by andpau66]

I agree. The mere fact that the term "new world order" was used is not indicative of that organisation's existence. It is important to consider the context in which the phrase is being used. It does not appear to me that the term is being utilised, in this case, to refer to the concept of the New World Order as it is commonly understood here on ATS. That is, the speaker seems to be referring to a new paradigm of emerging industrialised nations and the effect their new-found significance may have on the world stage. It does not appear to be in reference to a secret, shadowy organisation who is attempting to introduce a one-world government.

Why would the New World Order, a group which has gone out of its way to hide its existence (to the extent that there is not a single shred of tangible evidence that it exists at all) reveal its existence and plans through a simple textbook? It simply makes no sense. It is far more likely that the author, having heard the term used before, employed it to describe the changing face of world power structures - in this case, as a result of the emergence of developing nations into powerful, industrialised countries.

We must stop regarding every fanciful mention of the term new world order as evidence of the existence of this force. I am prepared to consider the notion that the NWO does indeed exist, but I should want more than a reference in an obscure textbook as evidence. Indeed, I should want to consider any tangible evidence at all. All I have ever seen is heresay and conjecture.

it makes perfect sense. the same term was also used in my "international relatinons" textbook by a cfr member named Jones. Its backdoor recruiting and manipulation of students who are too smart to buy into it any other way.

how can you confuse the term new world order ?

Originally posted by NuTroll
it makes perfect sense. the same term was also used in my "international relatinons" textbook by a cfr member named Jones. Its backdoor recruiting and manipulation of students who are too smart to buy into it any other way.

how can you confuse the term new world order ?

It's not about confusing the term, it's about examining the context in which that term is being used. From my understandings of the subject, the NWO is a collection of powerful individuals whose goals are, amongst others, the removal of the concept of nationhood in favour of a one-world government and possibly a one-world religion. This textbook passage does not refer to an organisation in this sense. The term "new world order" can be used to describe things other than the actual organisation known as the NWO. In this sense, the author is using it to describe the impact that newly-emerging industrialised countries will have on world affairs.

As for it being used as a recruiting tool - recruiting for what? Have you ever in your life seen a NWO army? Why would the NWO actually use the term "new world order" if it were trying to conceal its presence? Again I ask - what tangible evidence (as opposed to speculation or theory) is there that the NWO exists at all?

I agree, it is just interesting to hear it used in a textbook. Apart from George HW Bush's particular comment I haven't heard many uses of that phrase in normal literature. What also made it stand out was "the to be part of the powerful and rich core of a new world order", now the phrase new world order on its own might be okay but with the words "powerful and rich core" it seems a little shadowy to me.

The use of the term 'new world order' might be to normalise the idea in many minds, like some people's theories about alien movies.

[edit on 5-11-2005 by fatcat2]