This article is a continuation of PART I. I strongly advise you to first read this preceding article and the INTRODUCTION. Just as with the first part, the examples are not listed in some kind of scale of importance, but completely random. This because all views have to be learned and only a combination of all will give insight into the bigger picture.


In 1937 an anonymous article appeared in theDeeperInsightsPart2_huxley New York paper the Lockport Union-Sun And Journal.[1] The header reads that all news in this paper was exclusively provided by the Associated Press Agency, which has for long been one of the global players in news distribution. Near the end of the article they referred to none less than Aldous Huxley on the coming New World Order. The writer quoted Huxley, who seemingly had said that they were “in that periodic dark valley between two peaks of vision, when one system of living had lost its authority but the new system was not yet in sight.” Presumably Huxley was referring to the Great War and the coming second war, which already was really in the air then.

Unfortunately the article doesn’t make clear how many of the following text they’ve borrowed from Huxley, but what it says is nonetheless interesting. We can read that during these great moments of war “things hasten the dawn” and the definitive break with the past begins. And this constitutes “some sure step in the direction of progress”, making it clear that for progress to happen, something earth-shaking like war is necessary. Especially the last few sentences are interesting, certainly if you already have read the newspaper clipping by Nicholas Murray Butler in  DEEPER INSIGHTS INTO WORLD ORDER – PART I. This give credence to the conviction that the Second World War was not only a continuation of the first, but more like a repetition of a giant sacrificial ceremony or ritual.

Today the birth-pangs of a new world order run through all of man’s sympathetic system, and he feels discomfort and dread. But when this period of gestation is passed, the race will have the joy of a woman after travail, glad and proud that a new life has come into being.

The emphasis on being in a state of discomfort and dread is very specifically and important, because it is an intrinsic part of the alchemical process the initiates put humanity through. More information on this can be found in CLOSE TO PERFECTION.



On the right you see another little clipping from the New York Times, December 8, 1912.[2] A few years before the start of the Great War, but we already see the first musings for a world without war, and the neccesary “planetary politics”.




The extreme ambivalence of the Americans of a righteous World Order based on their morals and law, can perfectly be seen in the clipping below. It’s from a New York Times article from December 1918, written by one Earl Willis Crecraft.[3] He was a bigshot lawyer and as a student he was a prominent member of the Phi Delta Theta fraternity. This fraternity is classed as Freemasonic[4] and has long been very successful. As with some other clippings I’ve put up on this website, the one below shows some militant democracy, threatening to kill every villain who couldn’t be coerced to become part of the passive voting cattle in the West.




Reverend Ellis was not a real big player in his time, although he had some influence in the Christian community in the area of Philadelphia and New York. He wrote a popular book about one of the most well-known pastors of their time, Billy Sunday. Ellis was somewhat of a PR-man for Sunday. These clippings are from the Binghamton Press, July 9, 1943.[5] We see that Ellis also knew J. Edgar Hoover and spoke with him about the coming world order. While officially opposed to eugenics, Ellis did opine that first a “better breed of men” had to emerge. This new breed would then bring this new order in and take control over it. This resembles Plato’s idea of the Guardian-class who is to rule the ideal Republic. Ellis also told the readers that thousands of people around the world were involved in “interminable conferences” to finally bring about this new world order.



In this example we can see that evenDeeperInsightsPart2_copeland from the medical industry the pressure was there to push through the League of Nations.[6] Senator Copeland was a notorious physician, being extremely hard on illicit drugs, but eager on the compulsory usage of legal drugs and homeopathic experiments on patients. He was a prominent member of a wide scope of fraternal organizations and societies with secrets, for instance the Elks, the Freemasons, the Knights Templar, the Shriners, the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick and the Sons of the American Revolution.[7] This article doesn’t mention the NWO-phrase, but it gives an example of an early push for the global enforcement of legal drugs, to combat illegal drugs.


The not very well-known but in his time extremely influential Fabian socialist Herman Finer, was a main ideologue for a World Order after World War II. He was an acolyte of Arnold J. Toynbee, and cited him very often. In his book America’s Destiny [1947] he wrote that

If world government is to be effective in supplying an absolute guarantee of peace, then it is government which must cover the maximum number of the aspects of national life, including the form of government and opinion in its early stages. Its maxim might need to be Cicero’s on Caesar: to preserve the Republic, kill him at twenty-six not fifty-six! So wide and deep a government cannot be achieved by voluntary social contracts, if the ideologists are inflexibly resolved on their own existence, to the exclusion of ways of life chosen by other communities. For their self-solicitude is the heart of their belligerence. [8]

On the United Nations Charter, Finer was quite open, and wrote that it “established incipient and limited, but far-reaching, world government”. But on the other hand he said that in 1947 this official establishment was “too unreal for argument”, mainly due to their greatest enemy: nationalism. He thoroughly lamented that even after this second war this national state of mind still wasn’t driven out of the people’s heads.

But according to Finer a complete world government, “taut and comprehensive”, was not to be sought, mainly because he thought it wouldn’t be possible to unite it if the people weren’t standardized to a higher degree. Later on Finer became a bit more specific of the dangers the world government would encounter during its developing phase, and he named four main points of concern for the elite:


1.] The extreme differences in language, culture and religions in different places around the world, would make local elites lose their allegiance and break the treaties once signed. These differences in outlook would “pull them away from the common standards of the common government for the whole world”. And the “prospects of the world government, and defiance of center-escaping tendencies, could be improved only if the world distribution of population were thoroughly reordered without regard to existing claims of the peoples on territory”.

2.] “The central government could not always rely on the loyalty to its commands of the peoples afflicted with fear. It must be suspicious of special friendships that tended to develop among its peoples, especially if they became big and powerful in relationship to the total forces of the world commonwealth”.

3.] Local authorities might start to make their own decisions as soon as they would perceive the decision making of the central government too slowly. “The world government would lose credit”, and therefore it would be better to keep local governments for the less important decisions.

4.] “Fourthly, a world government would necessarily be beset with the possibility that somewhere in its broad terrestrial domain, sanguine men with original and subversive theories of the value of life would arise—dreamers, prophets, saints, preaching a loyalty to some god that was not the world god. […] However saintly it might be, or diabolical—and one man’s god is another man’s devil—the world government must watch for subversive men and dangerous thoughts.” [9]


So here we find quite an interesting confirmation on how the New World Order would possibly crush dissent, and at the first point we find the real reason why the multicultural society was introduced in the West. They couldn’t unite the world quickly through war, so they decided to do it slowly, incrementally, arranged through the best blueprint for world government they had at the moment; the United Nations.



In April of the year 1915 This New York Times reportedDeeperInsightsPart2_gompers [10] that several influential leaders of the American Federation of Labor put everything in they had to stop the war through the mutual agreement among all fighting factions to establish a world government to end all disputes for once and for all. Ernest Bohm was one of the vocal agitators, but subordinate to Samuel Gompers, a very influential Fabian socialist, Freemason and good friend of Woodrow Wilson. On the photo you see Wilson on the left and Gompers on the right. Gompers was deeply immersed in the fraternal life, and he was for instance also influential in the Order of the Knights of Labor [KOL], which was the leading general organization of workingmen in the U.S. in the early 1880s. Originally a semi-secret society open to all manufacturers, the KOL acted very hostile to what they deemed as “parasites”, namely stockbrokers, lawyers and bankers. Later on even a Masonic Lodge was named after Gompers, although he had to share the honor with none less than Benjamin Franklin.[11]


To his Marxist enemies in the Socialist Party of America [SPA] Gompers was nothing more than a corporate lackey who publicly defied the elite whilst secretly being employed by them, and he was therefore not a man of the people, but an impostor who screwed them often at strikes and negotiations. For instance Adolph Germer wrote in 1918 that the “interesting feature in connection with Gompers’ policy is, that the very man who was chiefly responsible for the tragedies of the Colorado strike, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., walked arm in arm with Gompers into a meeting in Washington at the outbreak of the war. They paid the highest tributes to each other. And it is perfectly proper that they should, for their minds run in the same direction—both are opposed to Socialism.”[12] For an example of Gompers publicly agitating against the capitalist elites, we turn to an article in the New York Times, from Mayday 1922, in which Gompers told the world he was mindful of

the intrigue which is everywhere about us and, above all, I am mindful of the newly adopted policy of the American-Anglo-German banking group, which perhaps constitutes the most dangerous element in the whole chain of pro-Bolshevik effort in America, because it has its hands on the most power. The truth is that predatory international finance has its appetite up and believes it sees loot in Russia. I know of nothing more cynical than the attitude of European statesmen and financiers toward the Russian muddle. Essentially it is their purpose as laid down at Genoa to place Russia in economic vassalage and give political recognition in exchange-recognition in exchange for concessions. They know immediate trade is not to be had, but they know that, eventually, they can get at the gold, the coal, the oil, the timber and future products of the soil. Russia herself is on the bargain counter, behind which stands Lenin as a bandit merchant, to take what he can get and what will serve his purpose in exchange for the heritage of a people rendered helpless by him and his. America, let us hope, will continue to stand for Russian economic independence as well as political freedom.

There are splendid and notable exceptions, but he great powers of the American-Anglo-German financing combinations have set their faces toward the prize displayed by a people on their knees. […]  If it were possible to despair of the sound democratic faith of the American people, the situation today in relation to Bolshevism would be mos discouraging. I do not despair, but never since the assumption of power by the faithless, ruthless. Adroit and conscienceless Lenin conspiracy has the situation in American been so filled with peril. [13]



The article on the right was published in the Binghamton Press, December 7, 1936.[14]  One wonders why and what a New York art instructor can add or change on a ‘New World Order’, if it means the political and military balance of power? The lady had attended some international conferences on world peace and education and seemingly qualified all of a sudden to give lectures on how the order had to be formed? Or was she maybe a scion of the mighty Goldman banking family?



Here we see a clipping from the Jamestown Post-Journal from January 1944.[15] This time is features the Methodist Church, and they were even planning to go on a “Crusade for the New World Order”, with a capital C.


In July 2015 the Jesuit Pope Francis called for his version of a “new economical and ecological world order”, where the riches of the world would be redistributed and the currency streams would partially be based on carbon output. This made several conspiracy researchers literally foam at the mouth, but in reality this of course is not really something new. In 2012 the preceding Pope Benedict XVI also called for something similar, as was picked up widely by the alternative media. For instance the website Activist Post, famous for releasing a combination of very strong articles with some obviously biased and weaker ones, headed Vatican Calls For World Government And A New World Order.[16]

Below you can see another three instances where the Pope agreed with the major globalists of their time. For instance during the Second World War, Pope Pius also voiced his holy opinion for an even holier World Order to be created, after the fighting would have ceased. Several American newspapers published the exact same text, in which the Pope outlined the five basic principles that this new and higher society should have. The clipping on the left is from the Schenectady Gazette, December 25, 1940.[17] In 1950, Pope Pius XII agreed with President Truman that the US would have to take the lead in achieving, and said about himself and his following that “we invoke the light, assistance and the blessing of the Christ Child” in order to help achieving the World Order.[18]  And finally the clipping on the right is from the year 1919, just after the end of the Great War.[19]




And to conclude, a print of the headline of the Philadelphia Inquirer of August 10, 1941, where we find that the Nazi version of the New World Order was compared to the one proposed by England and the United States. [20]




In 2004 one of the world’s foremost environmentalists, Maurice Strong, received an award from the National Academy of Sciences. In his speech he told the world that

Theodore Roosevelt was the first “environmentalist” President of the United States and a champion of what we now call “sustainable development” of natural resources long before either of these concepts was known. These pioneering visionaries focused primarily on conserving nature and natural resources.

Exercising this responsibility will require new dimensions of international cooperation that in turn calls for changes in attitudes, behaviour and institutions. It does not require, as many contend, world government, but rather a system of cooperative relationships through which governments, business, science and other key players can join to ensure effective management of those issues critical to human survival and wellbeing which no nation can manage alone. The current multilateral system, of which the United Nations is the essential centrepiece, provides the basic framework for such a system. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who is providing such inspired and innovative leadership during one of the most difficult periods in the history of the UN, is leading the drive to revitalize and reform the organization. This must include better methods of bringing nonstate actors into the processes of managing issues on which they have significant influence. Fundamental to the effective functioning of such a system is the role of science. We must look to science to illuminate major risks, vulnerabilities and opportunities, and to provide the ingredients for the technologies and processes through which we manage them. The National Academy of Sciences has done an extraordinary job in performing these functions for the United States and establishing cooperative relationships with its counterparts throughout the world. [21]

So Mr. Strong advocates ‘world governance’ instead of ‘world government’, likewise the UN. In PEACE OF MIND  you can read a bit more about the UN vision on world order too.




From a 2009 transcript of the UN General Assembly with the title Deep Reforms Of Global Financial System Inevitable:

The representative of Qatar said the report contained useful recommendations, and agreed that solutions were needed to contain the crisis.  Creating a just, sustainable world order was important.  At the follow-up International Conference on Financing for Development, an appeal had been launched to elaborate a new world order that would include all countries.  As the United Nations had been the appropriate forum for creating the international financial order, it was logical that it foster reform, and the high-level conference organized by the General Assembly President would enable the Organization to contribute to improved governance. [22]



Below a quote from the book Millennium: Winners And Losers In The Coming World Order  [1991] by the French geostrategist and former special advisor of President Mitterand.

This new order will not put an end to history. It will not be a Utopia, harmonious and placid. Indeed, conflict is more likely now that the Cold War has ended and the market has triumphed. For it is precisely because so much of the world now shares the same desire for a prosperous order based on choice that conflict will arise. In this respect, the twenty-first century may well resemble the nineteenth, when nation-states with similar imperial designs fought over the loot of raw materials and mercantile spoils, and over issues of national prestige.

For inequality will cleave the new world order as surely as the Berlin Wall once divided East from West. Even in the most privileged nations, not everyone will share equally in the vast riches of the new market order. For instance, a majority in the comparatively wealthier North, inundated by the stupefying flood of information and entertainment, will be reduced to weak and poor pawns, consigned to helplessly gaze with envy at the power and pleasure enjoyed by a minority. Ordinary people will gape with awe and resentment from their modest suburbs and homeless streets at the high rises of wealth and skyscrapers of power that will loom above their reach. [23]


Already in 1938 John Foster Dulles was heavily speculating about the coming war and the international peace organ that would have to come out of it, or otherwise humanity would be doomed. Out of the framework of the League of Nations treaty he and his associates were already constructing and designing, or forging as they themselves prefer to call it, the blueprint of what later would become the U.N. Treaty. From the book The Universal Church And The World Of Nations:

We can also have the satisfaction of knowing that one will be working toward a world order more closely conforming to Christian precept. The natural bounties which God has provided for the benefit of mankind are not apportioned in accordance with the national boundary lines which man has drawn. If those more fortunately situated are really disposed to share with others; if we would provide human beings throughout the world with a reasonable equality of opportunity, then we must open up the world so that national boundaries do not operate to create for some a monopoly of advantage which is largely fortuitous. What are the apertures which it is practical to cut in the boundaries of sovereignty?

Some form of mandatory or international administration can certainly be found which will avoid engrafting upon colonial areas the worst and most dangerous features of the sovereignty system. If we could promptly effect changes along the lines suggested we would have greatly opened the world. Boundaries would have become much less important.

We are, then, faced by one of those dilemmas which call for the exercise of intelligence. On the one hand we find that the energies of the different national groups are too variable to permit of predetermining for all time the adequacy of the several compartments into which such groups are to be fitted and by the walls of which they are forever to be contained. On the other hand we find no present possibility of effecting peacefully the relocation of national boundaries.

There remain only two practical alternatives. One is recourse to force the other is a program such as we propose, designed so to change the significance of boundaries that their location becomes a matter of relative indifference. If boundaries cannot be made changeable as to their location, they can at least be altered in character. If this be done, it then and then only becomes both feasible and morally justifiable to make boundaries inviolate and to provide for some collective effort to assure this. No legitimate reason exists for the forcible demolition of boundaries, once we have cut apertures through which human energy and initiative may peacefully pass. However, even under the most ideal form of society, there are breakers of the peace, and some preventive machinery is necessary. If our international society be well conceived, threats to the peace will be of rare occurrence and the collective force required to suppress them need not be formidable. [24]

In conclusion Dulles also wrote that “most of the suggested objectives may ultimately be achieved, if only as a matter of slow evolution”. That would be the Fabian way.







[1]  Lockport Union-Sun And Journal NY, September 4, 1937

[2]  New York Times, December 8, 1912

[3]  New York Times, December 2, 1918


[5]  Binghamton Press, July 9th, 1943

[6]  New York Herald, Friday May 23rd, 1919

[7]  Wikipedia; Royal S. Copeland

[8]  Herman Finer – America’s Destiny  [Macmillan, New York; 1947]  / p. 73

[9]  Finer – America’s Destiny  / p. 58-61

[10]  New York Times, April 8, 1915

[11]  Samuel Gompers / Benjamin Franklin Lodge No.45, see for instance here its history.

[12]  The Class Struggle, Vol. II   [The Socialist Publication Society; 1918]  / p. 10

[13]  New York Times, May 1, 1922

[14]  Binghamton Press, December 7, 1936

[15]  Jamestown Post-Journal, January 26, 1944

[16]  Activist Post – Vatican Calls For World Government And A New World Order  [December 10, 2012]

[17]  Schenectady Gazette, December 25, 1940

[18]  Amsterdam Evening Recorder, December 23, 1949

[19]  Philadelphia Inquirer, January 2, 1919

[20]  Philadelphia Inquirer, August 10, 1941

[21]  Maurice Strong – The Role of Science  [Speech at National Academy of Sciences; 19 April 2004]


[23]  Jacques Attali – Millennium; Winners And Losers In The Coming World Order  [1991] / p. 12

[24]  John Foster Dulles et Al. – The Universal Church And The World Of Nations  [1938]  / p. 162-167