Listening to my trusty AM radio, tuned to WTOP 1500 (D.C.'s main AM news station), I heard a brief story on NY Times commentary regarding the New World Order. Having been flamed here in the past to even imply that such a thing as the NWO exists (one poster implied by my even suggesting such a thing exists, I am making the forum look bad), naturally I was interested to hear D.C.'s main news-media outlet talking about it.

WTOP is no right-wing whacko station (quite the opposite). The political correspondent for WTOP even has his own parking space at the Capitol. This station is Washington's defacto-standard local news outlet (more timely than the Washington Post).

Anyway, WTOP mentioned at about 7:45 this morning something about a commentary in the NY Times, describing how Athens Greece pointed out that the NATO attack on Kosovo was bad because "we are all supposed to be one world now, without borders". The commentary went on to say how the left in the US, which has always been sympathetic to communist/socialist agendas, feels embarrassed that a religious western-style of government won in WWII. Something to that effect anyway.

Anyway, I searched the NY Times site, but did not find the article. Has anyone seen it?

On a related note, here is a UN/NWO piece about the implications of Clinton being a Rhodes scholar:

Kosovo and the New World Order

The WorldNetDaily article above is interesting, but I would REALLY like to see the full text article about the NWO in a mainstream (ahem) paper like the NY Times. Again, has anyone seen the NY Times op-ed?

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@anonymous.xxx), March 29, 1999

Answers

Not the Times, but it's pertinent:

Kosovo and the New World Order

-- sparks (wireless@home.here), March 29, 1999.

Most people interpret "New World Order" to mean that we live in a networked, interdependent, and shrinking world. It means that national boundaries have become more blurry after the Cold War has ended. It means that in order to effect change in this New World, governments have to act in concert with one another in such a way that mutual interests are emphasized rather than downplayed. It means that multinational corporations are real--get used to it--and that they exert as much power as any single large national entity.

New World Order in urban legend of course has other meanings and takes on dark, conspiratorial connotations.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), March 29, 1999.

coprolith,

it also means that there are a number of folks who are actively working to negate the power of the multinationals, reduce or eliminate the ability of governments to impose their wills on third parties, and reinstitute patriotic beliefs and concerns in general society...to borrow your phrase "get used to it".

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), March 29, 1999.

"Most people interpret "New World Order" to mean that we live in a networked, interdependent, and shrinking world."

I understand this. Just about everything I buy is made in China or Taiwan, for example. Between boats, planes, telephones and now the 'net, there is much more cooperation between countries than in the past.

The (unverified) NY Times commentary interested me though, because it reportedly portrayed US Democrats as communist/socialist supporters. This seems quite out-of-character for the NY Times, being something I would sooner expect in the Washington Times (D.C.'s conservative paper).

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@anonymous.com), March 29, 1999.

coprolith,

it also means that there are a number of folks who are actively working to negate the power of the multinationals, reduce or eliminate the ability of governments to impose their wills on third parties, and reinstitute patriotic beliefs and concerns in general society...to borrow your phrase "get used to it".

Arlin

Yes. I hope so. I'd be happy to "get used" to anything that is a challenge to unchecked power. Even if NWO is not interpreted as a bunch of pro-wrestlers or a global conspiracy, the fact that the phrase is ever used by our own leaders (esp. George Bush) belies a certain amount of hubris on their part. I mean, what the heck gives a small, select few the gall to declare (openly) that they know absolutely what's best for the rest of the world?

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), March 31, 1999.

Here's what Albert Einstein apparently thought about a "world government."

"The secret of the bomb should be committed to a world government. . .Do I fear the tyranny of a world government? Of course I do. But I fear still more the coming of another war or wars. Any government is certain to be evil to some extent. But a world government is preferable to the far greater evil of wars."

Albert Einstein: Atlantic Monthly, November 1945

(No opinion on this one. Just passing it on...)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), March 31, 1999.