Liberal publication The Economist (a British liberal news magazine, owned by the Rothschild clan) let the cat out of the bag…there is a ‘New World Order’ controlled by the banking industry, and they are not happy about Trump.

It’s not often the liberal elites talk about things like the ‘New World Order’ without sneering that this is nothing more than conservative conspiracy theories, but a new article from The Economist gave us a peak behind the scenes.

The Economist makes the strange assertion that, despite being directly responsible for numerous wars and destabilizing coup attempts around the world, the ‘New World Order’ is “better than any of the alternatives.

The arrogance and sense of entitlement of the global elites was fully on display in this article.

The Economist stated:

The liberal order of the past 70 years is under threat.

It was underpinned by a movement to make the waging of aggressive war illegal, and for very good reason.

The rules-based international order that emerged from the wreckage of the second world war was a huge improvement on any preceding era. It stimulated trade on an unprecedented scale and allowed even relatively small and weak countries to develop their potential without fear of predatory interference.

Except when it does not.  Especially when international business interests are at stake.  And unfortunately, if those interests are not threatened then the ‘New World Order’ turns a blind eye to genocides.

At the heart of that order was an underlying principle that perpetrators of aggressive war should not be rewarded. In particular, any territorial gains which derived from their aggression would not be recognized by the international community as being legitimate.

Which unfortunately only seems to be applied to Israel.

Instead, aggressors should be subjected to punishment—usually economic sanctions.

Occasionally, concerted military action approved by the United Nations (UN) forced them to relinquish what they had illegally seized.

Yet liberal internationalism is now under attack from many sides.

Donald Trump’s America First doctrine explicitly repudiates it.

Even two of the so-called “adults in the room”, who supposedly temper Mr Trump’s nativist excesses, seem happy to join him.

In a Wall Street Journal article in May H.R. McMaster and Gary Cohn, respectively the president’s national security adviser and economic adviser, wrote: “The world is not a ‘global community’ but an arena where nations, non-governmental actors and businesses engage and compete for advantage.

We bring to this forum unmatched military, political, economic, cultural and moral strength. Rather than deny this elemental nature of international affairs, we embrace it.”

Which makes it sounds like President Trump has no interest in helping the old money maintain their wealth and power with US resources.

The ‘New World Order’ made their collective nervousness clear in a recent article in U.S. News and World Report.  One gets the impression their idea of a “dangerous unknown” is when they don’t get to call the shots.

U.S. News and World Report:

“There are known knowns and known unknowns for the U.S. on the global stage – and some things we don’t know we don’t know – as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously said in the run-up to the Iraq War 15 years ago.

Now another Donald – who got elected by pledging to rethink America’s role in the world and keep friends and foes guessing – is ushering in an era of unknown unknowns.

“Unpredictability” is the buzzword of Donald Trump’s foreign policy lexicon and, not surprisingly, there’s a lot we don’t know yet about what that means for America and the world in 2018.

That’s partly because of factors outside President-elect Trump’s control. He inherits a world roiled by problems his predecessors failed to solve – from North Korea’s nuclear ballistic missile ambitions to the deteriorating outlook for Israeli-Palestinian peace; from a war in Syria that’s claimed half a million lives to a mutating threat from transnational Islamic terrorism.

Meanwhile, an echo across the Atlantic of the forces that carried Trump to power – populist and nativist backlash against immigration and open borders, a common currency and disruptions caused by global trade – is sweeping across our closest allies and threatens to splinter the European Union, with Britain’s startling vote to exit the EU an oracle of what might be coming.

The unknown unknowns are fueled by Trump’s promise to rip up the playbook of 70 years of bipartisan consensus in Washington that the U.S. is the “indispensable nation,” a superpower that, in this view, benevolently deploys economic, humanitarian and military might to promote security and like-minded democracies.

This is what President Trump refers to as the “swamp.”

Ever since Harry S. Truman invested in rebuilding Japan and Germany after World War II, a theory has guided every U.S. president: that democracies and liberal economies don’t go to war with one another.

The U.S. saw a self-interest in protecting weaker allies and defending free trade, open seas and rules to promote peace and prosperity.

So where do the rise of illiberal, anti-globalization forces and Trump’s rewriting of the foreign policy rulebook leave America? “With the liberal world order under siege,” replies Yascha Mounk, a fellow at the New America Foundation and the German Marshall Fund in Washington.

As many liberals say when their side wins: “Elections have consequences.”  Even though many people have never heard of the ‘New World Order’, they know they do not like American resources being used to preserve the fortunes of others.