Talk:New World Order conspiracy theory

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New World Order (conspiracy theory). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091212030333/http://watch.pair.com/merovingian.html to http://watch.pair.com/merovingian.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 17 February 2018 (

Biased/slanted article intro

An appropriate edit to be made here is to move the Rothkopf and/or the Marxist interpretations into the intro paragraphs of this article. The last sentence of the intro paragraphs, specifically: "Those political scientists are concerned that mass hysteria over New World Order conspiracy theories could eventually have devastating effects on American political life, ranging from escalating lone-wolf terrorism to the rise to power of authoritarian ultranationalist demagogues", should be followed up by the Rothkopf/Marxist interpretation as a counter to this, in saying that through elite ran neo-imperialism and capitalistic/financial globalization, there is a legitimate risk of western civilization descending into a new form of totalitarianism on a possible global scale. 1-2 extra paragraphs for the intro on this is not a big problem. If there's an argument against, there should be an argument for, one based off of elite theory and geo-political reality, and shouldn't be buried to the bottom half of the article. As it currently stands, this intro is slanted to one side, and can miseducate people on what is a vital civic matter by using loaded words and one-sided analysis for the intro, which most people wont read past especially when so much of the intro is filled with stigmatized, loaded language. Just my two-cents that I feel would make this article much better and educational. I'd attempt the edit myself but its protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.235.80 (talk • contribs)

Australia Health Minster confirms new world order is linked to covid. Please remove this as "conspiracy theory"

Dr. Kerry Chant, the Chief Health Officer of New South Wales, sent social media into a frenzy on Thursday, after she referred to a post-lockdown “new world order” during a Covid-19 press conference.147.161.167.2 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This expression exists independently of the conspiracy theory being discussed in the article. It seem unlikely to me that Dr Chant's use of it had anything to do with this topic. And Chant is a public servant in one state of Australia, not the Australian Health Minister. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what she said, Wikipedia supports the lockdowns in Australia and doesn't care how many people are gulag'd as a result. Shameless, I bet the ancestors of the Wikipedia founders are rolling in their ashen graves. 124.169.136.111 (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I have just left a formal welcome for you on your home page of your IP address. Please have a good look round at those links provided there, and learn a lot more about Wikipedia. I think you'll it works very differently from the way you think now. HiLo48 (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

When leaders across the world make the same choices and use many of the same phrases, it's not just a conspiracy theory, also consider all the ones that have been consecutively one after the other proven correct in the last few years... I don't disapprove of the new treatment, but you don't enforce a novel technology with a lot of dangerous flaws and still call yourself a good person. When it's gone through phase 3 testing i'm quite happy to take it, but i shouldn't have to take it now or don't work and accept being refuse into many places except for take out. The lockdowns and mandates are not in support of health, you dont' hit peaceful protestors with batons, tear gas and bullets, you don't harrass people with fines for stepping into their front yard, you don't ignore the skyrocketing suicide rate, you don't limit hospital services for non-covid patients and remove emergency support for many people, you don't oppress people for their health.

This is the new flu, it was labelled endemic from the beginning, remember the 2 weeks? It was known that this is somethign we have to live with, it was merely a matter of method. Then Australia implemented a Zero Covid policy which is medically STUPID and impossible. The evidence is clear, this IS a New World Order and politicians are not your friend, they never have been adn it's never been more clear than it is now. People who haven't taken a non-vaccine symptom suppressant are not dangerous, it's a new medical treatment which they have a right to refuse and those waiting to receive transplants have been struck off the list, but if they die they can still donate.

Please raise your awareness, we're trapped and democracy is unlawfully being deconstructed by the government and we've no way to oppose them. Worst part, due to mass fear and cleverly designed hypnotism by way of media manipulation which is plain to see now, the wider populace are prone to being brainwashed and many are in support of the governments changes with a lot of ignorance about details that they are offended to be informed of. They will just decry misinformation while having an unexplainable lack of explanation themselves, but won't change "sides", even though we are one people as Australians. I have no other way to reach out, we're being silenced on all platforms, if you must slander alternative opinions as misinformation (talking of those in authority) you're just trying to suppress information and avoi a discussion. The government have never revealed their sources, why? I don't doubt this will be erased, but i need to say something, it's too upsetting to be Australian right now, my dad is brainwashed, the things that he says now that he despised before 2020... and my mum is in a state of trauma and fear. I want out, but i won't take a treatment that have disabled or injured many and has killed some. It killed my auntie but i don't talk about it lest the thought police harass me for disapproving.

Covid isn't a choice, medical treatment is. What happened to the doctors oath? This is a new world, and the authoritarians don't care. 2406:3400:60A:E040:C13B:492F:CBF:DEED (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

More speeches by George H.W. Bush

Can we agree to include the speeches if we cut-out the credits/ref to the "not a reliable source", and actually copy the "not a reliable source" integrally, because the "not a reliable source" is using "reliable sources" itself ?

• diff

If not, what do you all suggest to improve the article?

--Mick2 (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

If that source is citing reliable sources, why aren't you using those instead of the unreliable source? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. --Mick2 (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I can guarantee you that no one will ever accept a video posted by "WakingTheMasses1776" as a reliable source. What you need is secondary reliable sources discussing the speech in the context of the New World Order conspiracy. Using primary sourced videos and making your own interpretations is not allowed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Are you aware that we have a separate article on New world order (politics), where we already discuss the use of the phrase by various politicians (including H.W. Bush). Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Penzance - COVID-19 stickers (33).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2022

Potential reference of another aspect of the New World Order, an interview with Zen Benefiel and Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove for New Thinking Allowed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU0ZY7p2jhQ&t=1795s Zen Benefiel (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2022

Another related article: https://mothershipcafe.com/messy-antics Zen Benefiel (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked this guy. Here just for self-publicity, see also User talk:Zendor. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

New World Order.

The United States President George HW Bush Jr. constantly mentioned and pushed the term the New world order. The new world order should not be viewed as a conspiracy theory it is a fact. 2600:6C48:777F:A62D:B8B7:352B:21A4:642 (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• You are conflating two distinct topics. Bush’s use of the term is covered at our article entitled: New world order (politics). This article, however, is about the conspiracy theory. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022

Remove conspiracy theory. There is no way to determine what a conspiracy theory is unless proof with out a doubt has been presented. No such proof has been submitted that proves the new world order is a conspiracy theory therefore it can not be labeled as such Lars860 (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that conspiracy theory is inaccurate, there is evidence littered all over the place and information is being suppressed. Some parts of the theories have even been admitted out loud. To dismiss this as a conspiracy theory is slander against free speech and freedom of expression. The disrespect is palpable. If theory after theory proves true, how is it a theory? It's a plausible theory. To say otherwise is true disinformation. Please consider this seriously, there's difference between a conspiracy which is a legitimate concern in and of itself, but there's a difference been conspiracy and plausible theory. The logic is being carried forwards, there are some erroneous theories, and some correct ones, only time can tell, but slander is totally unnecessary. 2406:3400:60A:E040:C13B:492F:CBF:DEED (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• When it is theorized that a conspiracy is taking place, that is by definition a “conspiracy theory”. In this case, the term is not meant to be dismissive, but precise and descriptive. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Biden

President Biden confirmed that there is a new world order. Please remove this tag. Mouze52 (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Content in Wikipedia depends on what is said by reliable sources. Can you provide one to support your claim above? HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Again,belongs in New world order (politics). Doug Weller talk 16:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you not see the logical fallacy of circular reasoning you are imposing? If the New World Order (conspiracy) actually has truth, then it would be implemented by politicians. But then Wikipedia would call it "New World Order (politics)" even though New World Order (conspiracy) would be true at the same time. Please think about the logical fallacy you folks here at Wikipedia have created by giving yourself the ability forever to merely say "oh that belongs in New World Order (politicians)" even as "New Wolrd Order (conspiracy)" demonstrates at least some measure of truth. 2601:602:180:2C0:D84D:E082:906A:3A35 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)