This use of language is a form of propaganda - and this vocabulary propaganda is much more subtle and effective than content propaganda. Content propaganda misinforms about issues, but vocabulary propaganda interferes with the ability to think or talk about issues in a way that can lead to understanding or enable effective political organizing.

As Orwell predicted, this kind of propaganda makes language volatile. In his scenario, one might read in the morning paper about an action against an enemy, with no mention that the same folks were faithful allies as recently as yesterday's edition. In actuality, the shifts in today's doublespeak are more subtle and evolutionary. As you watch new language being created, you can map out the NWO agenda: the white-hat items are to be promoted, the black-hat items to be suppressed.

A classic example was the Oliver North hearings. Words like "good soldier", "patriotic", "freedom fighter", and "legality" - not to mention "constitutional balance of powers" - took quite a beating. By labeling state-armed mercenary terrorists (ie., the Contras) as "freedom fighters", the whole linguistic ground of the hearings was warped beyond hope. Those who should have been indicting the pathetic little desk colonel and impeaching his boss were instead prefacing their remarks with kowtows toward the "freedom fighters" (if there was time remaining after the prayer service). There was no ability to discuss the affair from a meaningful moral or constitutional perspective, and the hearings dissolved into circus rhetoric/coverup, as was intended by the NWO language masters.

If we want to discuss the world situation with any kind of useful understanding, we need to explicitly decode the NWO doublespeak, and learn how to translate it into straight language. This is not an easy task, because the doublespeak process has, over time, warped political language to the point where it is nearly useless. Words like "socialism" or "tariffs", being so heavily tarred with the black brush, can't be used meaningfully without an explanatory preface. Even the word "government" is tricky to use - the echoes of "bureaucrat", "inefficient", and "corrupt" reverberate unconsciously.

Meanwhile, words like "market" and "competitive" have been promoted with the white brush to Unquestioned Axioms of The Universe. Easier would it be to hold back the tides with a horse and lance, than to resist "market forces", or so it would seem.

Following is my attempt to associate accurate meanings with some of the NWO's most topical phrases. Perhaps these definitions will ring true to you, and help you better understand what the NWO is about. With the doublespeak unraveled, the media becomes a source of accurate information after all - NWO statements, though coded, are actually fairly descriptive of the sinister NWO agenda.

"COMPETITIVENESS": the attractiveness of a venue to multinational investors, particularly: laxity of regulation and taxation; the degree to which a developed country regresses to Third-World status.

The phrase "Britain must be made more competitive for today's markets" decodes as "Britain must have lower wages and lower corporate tax rates so that it can compete with low-income parts of the world in attracting generic corporate investments".

Genuine competitiveness, as demonstrated by Japan, involves marshalling the nation's skills & resources toward adding value in focused markets - achieved by promoting synergy and making coordinated investments. NWO-peddled "competitiveness" is like prostitution - it values a nation's human and societal resources at scrap street value.

"CONSERVATISM": a policy of radically restructuring politics and economics in order to produce investment opportunities and undermine democracy; contrast with actual conservatism: a policy of preserving existing institutions in the interest social and economic stability.

Ronald Reagan was the clearest exemplar of this particular line of doublespeak. His rhetoric emphasized "returning to traditional values" while he was in fact dismantling long-evolved institutions and pursuing policies of unprecedented and untried social and economic transformation.

Genuine conservatism acts as a societal gyroscope, resisting nearly every kind of change, regardless of its direction. Conservatism's catch prase might be "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." A very important point to notice is that the assault by the NWO on existing democratic institutions has reversed the field in the game of Radical vs. Conservative: for most of the twentieth century, it has been the democracy-minded progressives who sought radical change, and the capitalist right wing who were the conservatives. But since Reagan & Thatcher, the right-wing has taken the initiative for radical change (in the wrong directions), and it is now the progressives who have a vital interest in maintaining the political status quo (ie., constitutional democracy and national sovereignty).

In this case, doublespeak succeeds in separating the progressives from their natural constituency. Progressive activists should be reaching out to the silent majority - arousing stick-in-the-mud conservatives to join the cause against reckless NWO-induced changes. By pre-empting the term "conservatism", the right-wing radicals have tricked most of the conservative-tending masses into following the wrong parade.

Progressives must reclaim their natural ground. To have any hope of assembling a significant constituency, they must find a way to break through the doublespeak jargon and help the general population to see that its interests are not being served by the new "conservatism", and that reckless changes are its true agenda.

We see a bizarre distortion of this desirable conservative reaction in the Militia mentality in America. Militia "conspiracy theories" are actually quite close to the mark: the U.S. government is being sold out to international interests; the U.N. is beginning to establish a sovereignty-threatening military force; the Constitution is being trashed; the establishment in Washington is effectively a bunch of traitors. But it's not the progressives who are bringing this message to these hard-core backwoods conservatives - instead the message is getting to them with a doublespeak reverse spin that manages to label the sellout of America as a "liberal" conspiracy! Since a Democrat happens to be in the White House, the NWO myth spinners have been able to transform anti-establishment sentiment into anti-liberal sentiment. Instead of addressing the real enemies of the Constitution (the corporate elite), the Militia tilts its lance toward the liberals and progressives who should be instead its natural allies in defending democracy. Divide and Conquer shows up once again as the most potent tool of autocratic control.

Language is a field of battle, the media is the artillery, and vocabulary is the ammunition. The NWO has taken the field by storm, and is proceeding with coordinated attacks on several fronts, using all the latest hi-tech vocabulary ammunition. They've laid a bed of land mines that cripple us when we try to stand on them: "liberalism", "conservatism", "prosperity", "democracy".

Progressives must wake up to the attack, and somehow find a way to fight back. The achilles heal of the NWO lies in its runaway successes: its high-handed treatment of nearly everyone has created an awesome potential counter-reaction - if people can be made to see who the real perpetrators are, those who are engineering the decline of democratic civilization. Even its doublespeak successes can be turned against it, if people can learn to read the NWO agenda by learning to decode the propaganda it dishes out. The NWO crowd actually reveals all in their propaganda, so arrogantly confident are they that their doublespeak enigma device won't be seen through by the people.

"DEMOCRACY": a government with a competitive party electoral system, in which multinationals are able to exert effective influence; Note: unrelated to whether the government represents the people or supports their welfare.

If multinational interests are served, then no amount of popular unrest, nor vote rigging - not even civil war - will serve as credible evidence that a "democracy" is a sham. If corporate interests aren't served, no amount of civil accord, prosperity, and popular support qualifies the government as "democratic".

Doublespeak audacity reached an outrageous climax when CCN broadcast live coverage of Yeltsin shelling his own Assembly, and billed it as a victory for "democracy"! (Did they realize they were televising an exact repeat of Lenin's shelling of an earlier Constituent Assembly? Would that have altered their assessment?) What Yeltsin's bloody power grab was a victory for was the corporate-sponsored dismantlement of the Russian economy, a program the Western-backed Yeltsin has played his part in flawlessly. With a subtle doublespeak twist within a twist, the media refers to Yeltsin as a "liberal element" - in fact he is a "neo- liberal" element, which translates as "NWO stooge".

Genuine democracy must be judged by its responsiveness to the informed desires of the people, its success in promoting their welfare, and their satisfaction with its performance. The mechanisms used to attain a functional democracy can have many forms. The media says only competitive political parties can deliver democracy, but don't believe it.

The record is clear that multi-party elections are no guarantee whatever of democratic process. Not only can parties be limited to those representing elite minority (or foreign) interests, but the autonomous authority of the military (typically subsidized by major NWO powers) often overshadows governmental policy.

To understand what democracy is really about, we need to re-examine our most cherished assumptions. Is the U.S. a democracy? Is Cuba a democracy? Do you think you can tell?

Cuba doesn't have competitive parties or elections. But policies are worked out by representatives from different segments of society, are explained forthrightly (at length!) on the media, and feedback is listened to. Literacy, health care, and nutrition levels (until recently) have been the envy of comparable economies. And Castro has been overwhelmingly popular for most of his tenure.

The U.S. has parties and elections. But policies are worked out by corporate interests, sold through misleading media rhetoric, and popular opposition is dismissed as emotional reaction. Literacy, health care, and nutrition levels - in fact human welfare by any measure - are on a steady decline. The esteem of government and elected officials looms ever lower on the horizon, nearly ready to set into a sea of total disgust.

The elections themselves are circuses where certain topics are selected as being "the issues" and the crowd is entertained with an orchestrated wrestling match where Hulk Republican and Pretty Boy Democrat dance around the limited ring of issues. When the match is over, the establishment gets back to its un-discussed agendas. Because there are no substantive issues raised during the campaign, the rhetoric fades into memory. There's no platform, and no distinct "change of government", as there used to be in Britain, before Tony Blair infiltrated the Labour Party.

Such elections are more like a shuffling of board members in a corporation - the faces change, the policies continue to be set as before - outside any democratic process.

Pink Floyd asked "Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?". I ask you: Can you tell a self-governing people from a stone parliament building?

"DEVELOPMENT": the restructuring of an economy to facilitate extraction of wealth by multinationals; transforming an economy so as to become more dependent on trade with multinationals; the theft of national assets by multinationals.

"Development" is usually pursued where the potential profit is greatest. This means that the investment is as little as possible and the exportation of eventual revenues is as great as possible. The result is a net drain on the "developing" economy. Fair play, you might say, if the "developing" country is able to take advantage of the situation to bootstrap its way into general economic prosperity (South Korea?), or if an infrastructure is created which benefits the general economy.

But these collateral benefits are not the purpose of "development", and the consequences are usually otherwise. Brazil is an example where "development" was heralded as a great success (at least for a period), due to the large flow of money through the country. But the local benefits were concentrated in relatively small, elite management and land-owner classes, and the consequence for the general population was the destruction of their food supply and agricultural economy to the benefit of agri-export operators. Meanwhile the rainforests burn to make room for displaced farmers or new agri-business "developments".

In other cases, a country might be left with an infrastructure to support export operations, such as a selectively deployed highway system, which may not be appropriate for the general development needs of the country, and which increases its dependence on oil imports.

In many cases, "development" involves the granting of mineral rights, land leases, tax discounts, or exemptions from regulations, as enticements to attract corporate "investment". In rare cases, such grants are valued appropriately, but all too frequently a cash-strapped Third-World country is compelled to give away long-term rights to valuable national assets while getting very little in return, usually some low-paying jobs and under-valued royalties. Whether the asset be copper, oil, or agricultural land, the multinational investor extracts billions in profits while the host country gets a relatively minor pittance of the actual value of the arm-twist stolen asset.

"FREE TRADE": the systematic destabilization of national and regional economic arrangements, by means of treaties such as GATT and NAFTA, in order to take economic decision making as far as possible from any democratic process, and centralize global economic control into the hands of the corporate elite.

"Free trade", it would seem from the corporate media's propaganda, is universally accepted by all reputable economists as the One True Path to prosperity and progress. Such a belief, which does not in fact enjoy a consensus among economists, is historical nonsense. The Great Economies, such as those of the U.S., Imperial Britain, and modern Japan, were developed under nurturing protectionist policies. Only when they achieved considerable economic strength did these countries begin to adopt "free trade" policies, as a way to prevent other nations from catching up.

An economy (see also: "Reform") is an ecosystem. A strong economy is one that has diversity and synergy. When "free trade" is imposed on an underdeveloped economy, it develops in a distorted way, and is over- dependent on external market fluctuations. Such weakness increases the bargaining leverage of the multinationals, which is the obvious objective of "free trade" in the first place.

"Free trade", which is part of the "globalization" agenda, brings a shift economic sovereignty from nation states, where there is hope of democratic participation, to corporate-approved international commissions, where only the corporate voice holds sway.

"GLOBALIZATION": the undermining of the nation state as a focus of economic organization; the reduction to commodity status of worldwide raw-goods suppliers; the monopolization of distribution channels by transnational trading companies; the reduction of health & quality standards to least-common- denominator levels; the most honest self-characterization of the NWO agenda.

Capturing more broadly the scope of the "free trade" campaign, "globalization" expresses the intent to homogenize the world economy - to make national borders transparent to the transfer of capital and goods, and enable a higher-order of centralized global management. The claim is frequently made that this will lead to a leveling of prosperity levels on a global basis, but with some exceptions, the evidence is all to the contrary. What we see instead, and as we should expect from how "development" is structured and "free trade" is implemented, is that "globalization" leads to a greater prosperity disparity between the "developed" and "developing" nations, as measured by the disposable income and living standards of the general populations. The greatest real prosperity gains have been achieved by those countries which created domestic synergy in their economies through selective protectionism (eg., Japan).

The availability of low-cost worldwide transport and the multinational scope of corporate operations - together with deregulation of trade barriers - leads to a situation where every producer is competing with every other producer throughout the world. Distributors can thus shop for the best deal globally, and continue to sell at whatever price they can get in their markets. As the distribution channels are increasingly concentrated into fewer hands (mega-store chains, conglomerate food importers, etc.), a classic cartel/robber-baron scenario is developing, and will become more pronounced as globalization progresses.

The "robber-baron" scenario looks like this: On one side you have separated, unorganized producers, all competing with one another to supply the distributors. On the other side, you have the consumers of the world, also separated and unorganized, buying what they can afford from what is offered in their local outlets. In the middle you have the distributors, who like robber barons of old, have (increasingly) monopoly control over the the flow of goods from producer to market. Not only can producer prices be driven down in one-sided bargaining, but producers can be selectively driven out of business, and in general the distributors have the power to dictate whether and how the producers do business.

The classic example of a robber baron regime was California in the heydey of the Southern Pacific Railroad. SP would audit the books of firms which shipped goods on their lines, and adjust each firm's shipping rates so that profits on sales were shared "fairly" with SP. We see this kind of thing today when the same drugs from the same distributors are sold at radically different prices in different countries - those who can afford more, pay more. It's the corporate version of a graduated income tax - but for the people, it's taxation without representation all over again.

As for non-price consumer concerns - environmental protection, content labelling, pesticide levels, other health issues - we can expect to see a rapid reversal of the "green" gains which have occurred since the sixties. Initially we see some localized improvements in standards, as the EU, for example, levels its regulatory playing field. But the long-term decision-making role for these policies is being shifted to corporate-dominated entities (WTO, GATT, Brussels). This means that as the distributors tighten their noose of control, and after local regulatory power has been disabled, the distributors will wield their awesome influence to reduce "anti-competitive" environmentalist "shackles" on "free markets" and "consumer savings". This is of course already happening. We have the EU telling the Germans that UK beef is safe, when the UK can't even get its story straight about whether adequate controls are being implemented. The EU, and even more so the WTO, have every motivation to go out of their way to decide in favor of more trade, and minimize appraisal of any negative consequences. Their business is to increase business, and they are a level removed from the influence of citizen's concerns. That's why "globalization" amounts to a partial sovereignty shift from democracy (where it exists) to corporate feudalism.

"Globalization", among the terms in the NWO phrase book, comes closest to being an honest use of language. The NWO does indeed, as "globalization" suggests, want to systematize commerce on a global scale, to homogenize the world in who-knows-how-many aspects - to bring forth a new world order. The deception comes in the implication that "globalization" will bring increased prosperity, that "free markets" will get goods to those who need them, and that the abundance of the earth will become available to humanity on a more equitable basis. As the song goes, "It ain't necessarily so".

"PRIVATIZATION": (1) the theft of citizen assets by corporate interests, achieved through discounted sell-offs of intentionally under-valued public properties; (2) the creation of new investment opportunities by means of dismantling successfully operating public services.

Media discussion of privatization is generally limited to the narrow issues of consumer benefits and operating efficiency. Even on these grounds, the arguments presented are usually far from convincing. They are frequently simply a recitation of the axioms "public is inefficient", "private is efficient" - often in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Privatization is not just a change of managers, it is a change of ownership. It removes equity from citizens, and removes or minimizes public control over asset development and pricing. In many cases following privatization, employment is reduced as an immediate step in reducing costs and enhancing the profit picture - without the social costs of the unemployment being considered in the overall accounting for the transaction.

The aim of a privatized operation shifts from providing a public service, to making a profit. Short-term profit pressures may reduce investment in long-term maintenance and upgrades, since their payback period may be beyond the horizon of the investor's plans for cashing out.

Despite inflated claims to the contrary, consumer benefits tend to be minimal - any reduction in rates would be a direct loss from the bottom line, and token reduction are usually enough for PR purposes and to satisfy regulatory constraints. The obvious fact that the operator needs to take out a profit is seldom mentioned when the benefits of privatization are proclaimed, as if efficiency benefits (if any) would accrue fully to the consumer.

In their personal finances, citizens appreciate the value of asset ownership. Owning a car or home offers significant cost savings over the lifetime of the investments, and greatly benefits the citizen in the face of inflation and fluctuating rental rates. With privatization, citizens are transformed from owners to renters, and suffer a long-term equity loss that may be many times greater than the discounted sale price of the asset. A privatized rail system may offer cheaper rates the first few years, but in the long run it will charge whatever the traffic will bear - in tomorrow's inflated economy.

"REFORM": the modification or replacement of an existing economic or political system, so as to create new corporate investment opportunities - it is not required that the new system perform effectively, only that it deliver corporate profits.

A system is in need of "reform" whenever corporate investors think of a new angle to make new profits. Obvious failures of the "reform" process, such as unemployment and poverty, are never the fault of "reform", but of incomplete implementation. Belief in "reform" is like religious faith: no amount of counter-evidence can phase the True Believer.

"Reform" is like clear-cutting. A forest is an ecosystem, with wildlife, streams, underbrush, etc. Careful forestry can harvest timber without destroying the ecosystem - but clear-cutting destroys all at once. An existing political/economic arrangement is also an eco-system: it is the subtle fabric that weaves the society together and enables its functioning. "Reform" - as we see in the Soviet breakup/selloff/ripoff - can destroy the existing framework all at once, and replace it with one that doesn't fit, that would take years or decades to take root and begin producing, and will be owned by someone else at the end of the day.

Genuine reform would take into account the existing conditions, and if a change is needed, would make incremental changes over time, evolving a working system toward sounder functioning. Most significant, it would reflect local customs and preferences - it would not seek to impose a cookie-cutter standard paradigm upon all cultures and traditions.

"THIRD-WORLD ASSISTANCE": (1) the subsidization of non- competitive First-World industries by means of channeling earmarked funds through Third-World hands; (2) carrot-money to entice "development" in preferred NWO directions; (3) hush- money to fund domestic suppression in host countries.

In order to encourage acquiescence by the taxpayers who foot the bill for it, "assistance" or "aid" almost always comes wrapped in the rhetoric of humanitarianism. Recently in Germany a more honest sales- pitch has been launched, announcing that for every mark that was spent as development aid, 1.15 marks came back as orders for German business. This is no surprise to anyone who's followed the numbers, but perhaps the publicity will invite the German people to ask why German business doesn't pay more of the "aid" bill.

Heaven knows the Third World needs real financial aid - not interest-bearing loans and not funds earmarked for externally-defined purposes. When strapped for development funds, it is difficult for a country to turn down offers, even when strings are attached. But money which leaves crippling debt in its wake, or which encourages the development of a dependent economy, would be better refused - it's like buying things you don't need using a credit card you know you can never pay off.

In fact, the bulk of "assistance" has been channeled directly to military and "security" forces, in the form of weapons, training, and cash. In some cases this results in lucrative contracts for First World arms manufacturers, but the main objective is to create a political climate subservient to NWO designs. The military muscle enables unpopular and NWO-submissive regimes to retain power and drain their country's resources by participating recklessly in the "aid/development" game - running up their country's credit cards at the NWO bank.

Viewed from the broadest perspective, the definition of "Third-World assistance" is "the NWO version of imperialism". It succeeds - in too many cases - in accomplishing the following imperialist objectives:

• controls the development priorities of the subject states
• manages the ruling class in the subject states
• puts the subject states into a condition of eternal debt
• extracts profits and resources with minimal taxation and labor costs
• provides markets for First-World goods, enhanced by absence of development in directions of self-sufficiency

Like all highly-leveraged NWO enterprises, this is all accomplished with minimal occupation forces, no colonial administrations, and no public understanding of what's going on - and the bill is being paid by those who benefit the least. If the NWO strategists weren't so sinister, you'd have to respect them.

Richard Moore is currently in temporary retirement in Ireland, pursuing writing projects. He has published several political essays via various "cyber channels", on cyber rights, the rise of fascism, and democracy. His Internet address is: rkmoore@iol.ie