When George H.W. Bush used this phrase, he plainly meant a post-Communist world. From the end of the Second World War to the late 1980’s–some 40 years–the world order has been the free world, the Communist world, and the developing, third, world. Logically, in a new world order, the so-called third world would be second. This is a change, one Bush no doubt believed would be for the better.
Bush fought and nearly died for this country in World War Two. His plane was shot down in the Pacific, if memory serves. There is no reason to doubt either that he liked and likes the privileged world he was born in to, or that he is a sincere patriot who values the freedoms which our ancestors bought for us with hard work, good thinking, persistence, and blood.
Who, however, has ALWAYS talked about a New World Order? Who has ALWAYS blamed shadowy “capitalist” elites for all the worlds woes? Who has ALWAYS seen–at least rhetorically–in the actions of the United States malignant imperialism and the desire to crush the dreams of ordinary working people? Communists, of course.
George Bush did not want to create a totalitarian state in this country, or elsewhere. This notion is farcical. OF COURSE he is plugged in to groups of rich (mainly) white people for networking and mutual benefit. Of course he has always taken advantage of business opportunities.
But to think for a moment that he, his son, Dick Cheney, or other senior American politicians want us to look like the old Soviet Union is ludicrous.
The RUSSIANS want us to look like the Soviet Union. Why wouldn’t they? Putin to this very day no doubt feels that if he had been in Gorbachev’s place he could have kept the thing together. Why would he not continue the century-long conquest planned by Lenin? These people do not think in short time scales. That is the one advantage of totalitarian rule.
It is so interesting that what can be a very damaging story if understood one way becomes a tool when inverted. Bush has been blamed for an attack he had nothing to do with, and what is the supposed answer? Voting for Democrats, who are continuing the Fabian subversion of our nation. That, or removing oneself from the democratic process outright, believing wrongly that both parties are trying to end our freedom.
Think about Lee Harvey Oswald. How many headlines have you seen saying “Communist assassin kills American President”? None, I suspect. Who got the blame? A purported “military-industrial-intelligence cabal”. Who are those people in reality? Then, the ones trying to protect us from the Communists, and doing well at it.
Thus, the benefits are huge–even when your guy, if he was their guy directly–gets caught. You use it to further undermine support for the institutions that oppose you.
It needs to be said, too, that there is a much bigger difference between having strong internal surveillance capability and not having it, than in having it controlled by one set of people versus another. Once an apparatus is in place, it becomes a simple matter of perverting and redirecting it. It can be created by anybody. It could be created by a saint, and as long as he runs it, everything is perfect. Nothing can go wrong. But once that person is gone, the whole thing, like a cannon, can be turned around and pointed at an entirely different set of people. This is the essence of Fabianism. They don’t care who controls the apparatus, merely that it is created. That is the main thing.
The Federal Reserve is another good example. When founded, it was directed by the Secretary of the Treasury. It was, for all intents and purposes, a government agency. It had limits on what it could buy. For Open Market operations it was limited to purchasing Treasury bonds, as I recall. Yet over time, over failing memories, and official and journalistic inattention, and aggressive propaganda campaigns, and taking advantage of crises (most of which it created), it got unshackled, and fully independent, to the point where everything it did was secret, and where there were no limits on its power of money creation/reallocation.
Now, the fact that Keynes tried to end the Fed tells me it was not–at least then–an entity he felt congenial to him. That entity, today, would be the IMF/World Bank which he created in lieu of abolishing the Fed as it then existed. The IMF has, I read, $350 BILLION in cash reserves, most of which money was gifted it (created) by central banks the world over, but most importantly by our own Federal Reserve.
When contemplating a “New World Order”, that is the sort of thing we need to be concerned with. Does Putin meet with them? Are they congenial to the idea of a Communist resurgence? 70 years of failure were not enough to teach the most ardent Communistic Fascists of the error of their ways. Why would these people not be out there at this very moment, planning?
I see no reason to doubt this.