New World Order

Is It Reality Or Misinformation? US Media States That New World Order Is In Danger With A Trump Presidency!

Written by JayWill7497


The establishment which includes the Military-Industrial Complex and the mainstream-media (MSM) put their capital on Hillary Clinton and lost. They placed their wagers on Clinton who was expected to become the U.S. president but were undoubtedly defeated as Donald Trump sailed to victory. Hillary Clinton sent her campaign chairman John Podesta to notify her loyal grieving supporters to “go home and get some sleep” and that “We will be back and we’ll have more to say tomorrow.” The subsequent day she conceded to Donald Trump. Clinton should have been totally distraught by her loss (she was possibly crying her tears out the night before on the missed opportunity to begin World War III by launching a thermo-nuclear war in opposition to Russia). For today, Hillary Clinton is history.

The mainstream-media (MSM) specifically The New York Times posted an report titled ‘Donald Trump’s Victory Promises to Upend the International Order’ by Peter Baker which states that Trump’s victory is “upending an international order that prevailed for decades and raising profound questions about America’s place in the world.”America is the engine of the ‘international order’ or the ‘New World Order’ (NWO) in truth; it has intervened in numerous countries by launching wars of aggression and has started numerous coups since the end of World War II. They have enforced international trade policies that favored U.S. corporations, touted for open borders on an international level and maintained U.S. dollar hegemony as the world’s reserve currency. The New York Times post states that Trump’s “America First” policy will have backlashes worldwide:

For the first time since before World War II, Americans select a president who promised to undo the internationalism practiced by predecessors of both parties and to construct walls both physical and metaphorical. Mr. Trump’s win foreshadowed an America more focused on its own affairs while leaving the world to take care of itself.

The outsider revolution that powered him to power over the Washington establishment of both political parties likewise mirrored a fundamental shift in international politics confirmed already this year by events like Britain’s referendum vote to leave the European Union. Mr. Trump’s success could fuel the populist, nativist, nationalist, closed-border movements already so apparent in Europe and dispersing to other parts of the world.

Global markets droped after Tuesday’s election and quite a few around the world scrambled to find out what it might mean in parochial terms. For Mexico, it appeared to presage a new era of confrontation with its northern neighbor. For Europe and Asia, it could rewrite the rules of modern day alliances, trade deals, and foreign aid. For the Middle East, it foreshadowed a likely alignment with Russia and fresh turmoil with Iran

Is Donald Trump truly an anti-establishment president?

The establishment is worried that Trump would “shake-up” long standing policies under the Democratic and Republican duopoly that benefitted private interest groups:

He promised to construct a wall along the Mexican border and briefly bar Muslim immigrants from entering the United States. He inquired Washington’s longstanding commitment to NATO allies, called for cutting foreign aid, lauded President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, promised to rip up international trade deals, assailed China and proposed Asian allies develop nuclear weapons

“I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall” Trump stated in 2015. Trump’s approach to build a wall along the borders of Mexico will not prevent immigrants from crossing the borders without dealing with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which has emaciated millions of small Mexican farmers. In a February 2014 record by Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch titled ‘NAFTA’s 20-Year Legacy and the Fate of the Trans-Pacific Partnership’ specified NAFTA’s impact especially on Mexican farmers:

The agricultural terms of NAFTA, which eliminated Mexican tariffs on corn imports and eradicated programs assisting small farmers but did not discipline U.S. subsidies, resulted in widespread dislocation in the Mexican countryside. Amidst a NAFTA-spurred influx of cheap U.S. corn, the price paid to Mexican farmers for the corn that they grew fell by 66 percent after NAFTA, compelling many to abandon farming. Mexico’s involvement in NAFTA also assistedto propel a change to the Mexican Constitution’s land reform, undoing provisions that guaranteed small plots – “ejidos” – to the millions of Mexicans residing in rural villages. As corn prices plummeted, indebted farmers lost their land, which newly could be obtained by foreign firms that consolidated prime acres into large plantations.

As an exposé in the New Republic put it,

As cheap American foodstuffs overloaded Mexico’s markets and as U.S. agribusiness moved in, 1.1 million small farmers – and 1.4 million other Mexicans dependent upon the farm sector – were driven out of work between 1993 and 2005. Wages fell so precipitously that currently the income of a farm laborer is one-third that of what it was prior to NAFTA. As jobs vanished and wages sank, many of these rural Mexicans emigrated, swelling the ranks of the 12 million illegal immigrants living incognito and competing for low-wage jobs in the United States

Mexico’s economic difficulties triggered by NAFTA did not end there; the truth is hunger became increasingly widespread. NAFTA increased the poverty rate adding more than 19 million more Mexicans. More Mexicans are currently living in poverty than they did 20 years ago. Today 60 percent of folks live below the poverty line because of NAFTA’s policies:

Although the price paid to Mexican farmers for corn plummeted after NAFTA, the deregulated retail price of tortillas – Mexico’s staple food – shot up 279 percent in the pact’s first 10 years. NAFTA provided service sector and investment rules that facilitated consolidation of grain trading, milling, baking and retail so that in short order the fairly few remaining large firms dominating these activities were in a position to raise consumer prices and reap enormous profits as corn costs simultaneously dropped. This result stands in sharp contrast to promises by NAFTA’s boosters that Mexican consumers would benefit from the pact.

Just before NAFTA, 36 percent of Mexico’s rural population earned less than the minimum income required for food, a share that grew by practically 50 percent in the agreement’s first three years. On the 10-year anniversary of NAFTA, the Washington Post noted, “19 million more Mexicans are living in poverty than 20 years ago, according to the Mexican government and international organizations. About 24 million – nearly one in every four Mexicans – are classified as extremely poor and unable to afford adequate food.” Nowadays, over half of the Mexican population, and over 60 percent of the rural population, still fall under the poverty line, in spite of the promises made by NAFTA’s proponents

NAFTA was a definitive victory for U.S. President Bill Clinton and the interest groups he represented behind closed doors. Trump desires to rewrite NAFTA. If Trump’s plan is genuine and it moves ahead, Mexico can quite possibly restore its farming sector and supply the Mexican folks with jobs that would permit Mexican immigrants residing in the U.S. to return home. One of Trump’s policies is the mass deportations of undocumented immigrants which is extremely unpopular among many Latinos and pro-immigrant supporters.

As for NATO troops who are supported by U.S. taxpayers, Trump informed Charles Lane and the editorial board of the Washington Post on March 21st, that he does “not” desire to pull out NATO. Here is what he stated:

LANE: As you know, the whole theory of NATO from the beginning was to keep the United States involved in the long term in Europe to balance, to promote a balance of power in that region so we wouldn’t have a repeat of World War I and World War 2. And it seems to be like what you’re saying is very similar to what President Obama said to Jeffrey Goldberg, in that we have allies that become free riders. So it seems like there’s some convergence with the president there. What concerns me about both is that to some extent it was always thought to be in our interest that we, yes, we would take some of the burden on, yes, even if the net-net was not 100 percent, even steven, with the Germans. So I’d like to hear you say very specifically, you know, with respect to NATO, what is your ask of these other countries? Right, you’ve painted it in very broad terms, but do you have a percent of GDP that they should be spending on defense? Tell me more. Because it’s not that you want to pull the U.S. out.

TRUMP: No, I don’t want to pull it out. NATO was set up at a different time. NATO was set up when we were a richer country. We’re not a rich country. We’re borrowing, we’re borrowing all of this money. We’re borrowing money from China, which is a sort of an amazing situation. But things are a much different thing. NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we’re protecting Europe but we’re spending a lot of money. Number 1, I think the distribution of costs has to be changed. I think NATO as a concept is good, but it is not as good as it was when it first evolved. And I think we bear the, you know, not only financially, we bear the biggest brunt of it. Obama has been stronger on the Ukraine than all the other countries put together, and those other countries right next door to the Ukraine. And I just say we have, I’m not even knocking it, I’m just saying I don’t think it’s fair, we’re not treated fair. I don’t think we’re treated fair, Charles, anywhere. If you look everything we have. You know, South Korea is very rich. Great industrial country. And yet we’re not reimbursed fairly for what we do. We’re constantly, you know, sending our ships, sending our planes, doing our war games, doing other. We’re reimbursed a fraction of what this is all costing

Trump will assist NATO as long as the EU compensates financially for it.

One other positive word, Trump does desire a better relationship with Russia who has been battling alongside Syrian government forces in opposition to the Islamic State. Trump desires the U.S. and Russian forces to work together to eliminate the Islamic State. Putin has shown his willingness to work with Trump to rebuild a relationship that is mutually beneficial. The New York Times also made allegations that “with Mr. Trump praising Mr. Putin and American investigators concluding that Russians had hacked Democratic email messages.” There is no evidence that Russia hacked the Democratic National Convention’s (DNC) emails or that Trump is connected to Vladimir Putin. The New York Times itself documented on October 31st ‘Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia’, maybe Mr. Baker did not remember to read his own news organization’s posts on the subject:

Law enforcement officials point out that none of the investigations so far have discovered any definitive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials at this point believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election instead of electing Mr. Trump

Baker’s post also describes that Trump has “assailed China” when it comes to trade. Will Trump set up a trade war in opposition to China? Trump has belittled China and wants to begin “levying tariffs” on China’s exports to the U.S. In an intriguing twist, Trump also desires to end the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement with 12-nations led by the U.S. created to isolate China. U.S-China trade deals will become difficult under Trump. A trade war between the U.S. and China could become a likelihood under a Trump presidency.

Trump supports Israel and some in Israel support Trump. Nevertheless, Baker makes the case for Israel’s issues regarding the U.S. role in the Middle East:

Israel was another location where Mr. Trump enjoyed some support, primarily due to the perception that he would give the country a freer hand in its handling of the longstanding turmoil with the Palestinians. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders and commentators stressed about a broader disengagement from a Middle East awash in war, terrorism and upheaval.

“Decisions cannot be postponed,” stated Yohanan Plesner, a ex – member of the Israeli Parliament currently serving as president of the Israel Democracy Institute. “The situation in Syria is very chaotic. The unrest in the region is continuing. America has to decide whether it wants to play an active role in shaping the developments of the region”

Washington desires to remain in the Middle East for its natural resources. Israel also desires Washington to continue to finance their military (Israel Defense Forces) for any conflict against their neighbors and to maintain their illegal occupation. Trump will not modify that arrangement. The truth is, Trump will recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital defying international law standards which would start an uprising by the Palestinians. Trump would also raise concerns with Iran (who he called a “state sponsor of terror”) by suggesting that Iran’s Nuclear Deal should be renegotiated. The question is will the Iranian government renegotiate with the Trump administration? I don’t think so. Anticipate more conflicts and regime change in the Middle East. A Trump presidency would be a catastrophe in the Middle East.

Will Donald Trump End the ‘New World Order’? Inquiries Linger


Can Trump’s foreign policies end the NWO in its tracks? Will Trump broaden the military and give it unconditional support with more federal funding or will he shut down U.S. bases around the world? Would Trump escalate or deescalate the war in Syria? Will Trump touch base with Vladimir Putin and work together to eliminate the terrorist networks originally developed by Washington? Will he pull back U.S. bases out of Europe and elsewhere bordering Russia and China? Will Trump support “regime change” in Latin America? Would he withdraw U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? Would he continue to peddle arms to Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemen? Would he offer Israel a free hand in managing the Palestinians or its neighbors which includes Hezbollah and Syria? All remains to be seen. Trump has stated that he will be both “reliable” and “unpredictable” as president in his foreign policy speech last April. So tighten your seatbelts, the entire world could be in for a ride.

As for Trump’s domestic policies, he stated he would cut taxes for businesses and working class families and would promptly get rid of Obamacare, which is something he can move ahead with in the first 90 days in office. Would he get rid of unwanted bureaucracy of doing business in the U.S.? Would he also apply a nationwide “Stop and Frisk” policy in an effort to reduce crime which is obviously a fascist policy? Would he seek the arrest of Hillary Clinton and seek a criminal investigation into the Clinton Foundation? There are many more inquiries on what Trump would do when he assumes office this coming January.

Many point out Trump is “anti-establishment” but at the same time he is selecting prominent members of the establishment like James Woolsey, a ex – CIA director and a neoconservative as his senior advisor on national security problems. Woolsey was an supporter for the war in Iraq and the Middle East. Trump at first has called the war in Iraq and Libya “disasters” today he selects an extremist supporter who is for war in the Middle East. You understand where this is going. Trump’s Vice-President Mike Pence is also an ultra-right wing war monger. Pence pointed out that a safe zone should be set up and launch a military strike in opposition to the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad to safeguard civilians in Aleppo. He would also like to utilize a missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland to counter Russia. That is something Russia would not put up with. Trump would almost certainly authorize regime change in Latin America as Telesur documented on October 25th “With a victory in November everything will change, that change includes standing in solidarity with the suffering of the people of Cuba and Venezuela against the oppression of the Castro and Maduro regimes” Trump stated at campaign rally in St. Augustine, Florida. Trump has stated many things that are questionable particularly when it comes to U.S. foreign policy.

What is fascinating about Trump’s victory is that the MSM was writing him off as a serious competitor. Trump did it without investing enormous amounts of money as did the Clinton campaign. The MSM gave him all the publicity he required and ran with it. The greater number of folks who voted for Trump were voting in opposition to Hillary Clinton and the establishment. Many voters were also Bernie Sanders supporters (who were mad with Hillary Clinton undermining his campaign) and independents. With Trump, there are many uncertainties and that is an item the world would have to learn to live with. The irony is that as nasty as Hillary Clinton was, at least you understood what to anticipate and that is something no one can ever refute.


Read Also New World Order Plots To TAKE OUT President Trump!


These People Are A Danger To Themselves And Others! Wake Up!!!!!!

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this article or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Fusion Laced Illusions content!

About the author



Reporter, Journalist, Blogger, Researcher. I am committed to providing information by posting/archiving videos, articles, and links. I also investigate to raise awareness on numerous issues, inspire critical thinking, involvement, and hopefully to help make our world a better place for all. “The truth, always the truth at all costs”