Talk:New World Order conspiracy theory

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New World Order conspiracy theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Do not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

New World Order conspiracy theory has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 9, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
April 4, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Skepticism GA‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views GA‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American GA‑class High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Sociology GA‑class Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Secret Societies GA‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Secret SocietiesWikipedia:WikiProject Secret SocietiesTemplate:WikiProject Secret SocietiesSecret Societies articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Organizations GA‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations GA‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

Interesting how you characterize the left-wing interpretation as inherently "legitimate".

Great Reset and World Economic Forum

How come these two are not at least mentioned in this article? 2A02:2F0B:B705:2600:D992:F46D:DBBB:AD97 (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because reliable sources that discuss the NWO theory don’t (yet) mention these things as being related to the theory.

For a topic like this, the most reliable sources will be historians who examine the theory, analyze it, and trace how it developed over time… and historians (of necessity) lag behind what proponents of the theory are claiming. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WEF hasn't gotten the message

WEF discussion on the New World Order I know that isn't a reliable source, but when the WEF openly discusses it and says that they're trying to achieve it, then it contradicts the narrative of this article that it's a "conspiracy theory." One of the weirdest things about this topic is that Western establishment media is saying that it's a fallacy, while the WEF elites openly use the phrase in discussions about how they're trying to reorganize global governance. 108.18.156.124 (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is no single, unarguable definition of New World Order. So what you think you're talking about when you say New World Order may be very different from what a particular speaker at WEF means. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me these people have an "ends justify the means" mentality. If one has to make lying and Deception the way to fundamentally change the world, chances are no one would want it. 174.251.209.55 (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Reset sources

The WEF’s Great Reset initiative also became interwoven with similar long-standing conspiratorial themes including those related to a supposed New World Order; or claims associated with Agenda 2030, part of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. The initiative has also been adapted to propagate denial and scepticism about the realities of climate change. In this case, it has been used to frame global warming as part of a plot devised to destroy capitalism. According to this narrative, climate action is really meant to control what we own and eat, and ultimately impose totalitarian rule. Narratives mentioning the Great Reset in the run-up to COP27 linked the conspiracy to the energy and cost of living crises, claiming the current situation had been deliberately provoked to facilitate state control.
A phrase that is often used to support the conspiracy that the WEF is planning to strip people of their liberties, possessions and private property is: “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.” This originates from a 2016 WEF video and a subsequent series of articles by members of the forum’s Global Future Council where they made predictions about what the world would look like in 2030. It included statements like “we won’t transplant organs, we’ll print new ones instead” and “you’ll eat much less meat,” but it was the contribution of Danish MP Ida Auken that grabbed the most attention. Writing from a city in an imaginary future, Auken described a world where technological advancements had made transport, accommodation and food free. “Welcome to the year 2030,” she said. “I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes … Everything you considered a product has now become a service.”
The Great Reset has also been a motivating factor toward violence in some cases. In October 2021, the neo-fascist Forza Nuova group took part in violent anti-vaccination protests in Rome and targeted a hospital emergency room as part of their fight against the Great Reset and the country’s green pass (COVID-19 vaccination certificate).
Spread of the Great Reset conspiracy
ISD has tracked the spread of conspiracy theories regarding the Great Reset from the beginning. After the WEF initiative was launched on 3 June 2020, the first video describing the call-to-action as a “New World Order power grab” was posted four days later on alt-tech video platform Bitchute. The video has since been viewed over 100,000 times. Towards the end of June, an op-ed written by Justin Hawkins of the Heartland Institute, a leading climate change-denying think tank, was published on Fox News, in which he wrote the Great Reset’s “socialist outline is clear: destroy the global capitalist economy and reform the Western world.”

https://www.isdglobal.org/explainers/the-great-reset/

Have at it wikiactivists that like to pretend like there are not reliable sources linking the two terms, and go ahead and edit Institute for Strategic Dialogue to prove to other editors how it can't possibly be a reliable source /s.

2A02:2F0B:B500:5A00:8D78:C617:4C54:3B0B (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename from 'theory' to 'theories', and removal of brackets

1. More than one theory is detailed in the article body, hence plural form may be better than singular form. One is inclined to think that there is no single, concerted, unified theory describing a (single, concerted, unified) conspiracy. 2. Why remove brackets? A reason is that the phrase 'New World Order' - in rare but notable cases - is neither a conspiracy, nor referred to by conspiracy theories, as evinced by the ordinary use of the phrase in the New world order (politics) page. Therefore, 'new world order' is a mere descriptor of the 'conspiracy theor[ies]'. Hence, we may agree that the crucial expression in the article title is 'conspiracy theory' rather than 'new world order'. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Guidestones

Someone needs to update this part under New World Order: they have been blown up. One source: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/28/1113855150/a-georgia-monument-was-destroyed-locals-blame-conspiracy-theories 72.162.228.254 (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2023

This edit request to New World Order (conspiracy theory) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

the NWO being a conspiracy theory.. its not a theory. Ronald Reagan gave a speech citing the words for a future NWO. so did bush sr. get with the facts

this isnt annedit but why ive come to see from wickedpedia. these days- wickipedia is nothing more than liberal agenda trash, hiding truth for a far left narrative.

get writers and editors who are independent, unbiased *factual* writers who write facts not this fictitious narrative 24.184.169.217 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Heart ^(talk) 18:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2023

This edit request to New World Order (conspiracy theory) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A conspiracy just means two or more people are involved in a common goal. So a conspiracy is actually correct for this theory. 104.218.65.3 (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]