First, the author of this article on Infowars has a degree in psychology, and covers psyops and media.
Second, the piece referred to in The Economist is not an article as such but a book review. The authors of the book teach law at Yale.
Third, the authors' definition of The New World Order is different and perhaps more specific to how most of us would define the NWO. I, and many others, would define the New World Order to conist of CFR/Bilderberg/Federal Reserve, etc. But the authors' definition is based on a peace treaty signed in 1928, a treaty designed to stop and deter wars from ever happening again.
They believe that the basis of what they call the New World Order (to distinguish it from the Old World Order, codified by a 17th-century Dutch scholar, Hugo Grotius, in which might was nearly always right) was an extraordinary diplomatic event in Paris in 1928. The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, or the Kellogg-Briand pact (named after the foreign ministers of the United States and France who had sponsored it, pictured seated right and left), was signed by more than 50 countries, including all the great powers.
So using this defintion, the whole book review becomes less a celebration of Trump raging against and worrying the New World Order (Bilderberg, CFR, etc) and more of an expression of concern that Trump is dragging the world into WW3.
So again, just as Infowars are promoting the Pentagon psyop to 'stand for the national anthem' at NFL games (which only started in 2009 after the Pentagon paid the NFL to do so), here we have a psychologist who covers psyops promoting a book review as an article, and far from Trump raging against the NWO (Trump has picked many CFR/Bilderberg/Skull & Bones for his administration), the authors of the book believe Trump is threatening global stability and peace, which he is.
No comments:
Post a Comment