Despite listing off legitimate threats like jihadism and terrorism, Communist Chinese expansion, and North Korean hostility, an article published by The Economist names Trump as the biggest threat to the “liberal” New World Order.
“Perhaps the greatest danger at present is the incumbency of an American president who despises international norms, who disparages free trade and who continually flirts with abandoning America’s essential role in maintaining the global legal order,” writes The Economist.
The globalist outlet refers to a book titled “The Internationalists,” to explain the origins of the “liberal international order” as a move to “make the waging of aggressive war illegal,” which is why it must be “defended like never before.”
“The rules-based international order that emerged from the wreckage of the second world war was a huge improvement on any preceding era,” states the article.
“Yet liberal internationalism is now under attack from many sides. Donald Trump’s America First doctrine explicitly repudiates it.”
The Economist describes how the Trump administration views the world stage, citing a piece written by two of Trump’s advisors in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.
“The world is not a ‘global community’ but an arena where nations, non-governmental actors and businesses engage and compete for advantage,” H.R. McMaster and Gary Cohn wrote. “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.”
The Economist then 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.”
“Of course there are still plenty of wars,” it states. “In some ways the New World Order, which has helped make international wars so much less imaginable, has inadvertently made possible more ‘intranational’ wars.”
“Fragile and fractious countries that would previously have feared being conquered by more powerful neighbours can now fall prey to civil wars or brutal insurgencies without bad actors fearing loss of the national territory they seek to control. Non-state groups, such as Islamic State (a misnomer), can take and hold, at least for a while, territory from dysfunctional governments. Well-meaning but ill-conceived wars to change odious regimes have sometimes gone badly wrong.”
The magazine concludes by saying that the NWO architects of the past “must be spinning in their graves” considering how far Trump has already come and that he must be removed from office to preserve the New World Order.