NWO vs OWO - what's your pick?

[poptok1]

It's more of a philosophical question however serious amount of politics was build around this notion throughout recent decades.
Bellow I'm trying to shortly introduce both ideas as a ideological essences of my (and not only) understanding. Please take a second and vote your opinion. Of course synthesis of both "ideals" is also welcome nevertheless I don't think such merge is even remotely possible. edit: O, I just realised that there are no polls in this section    edit2: I'm blind 

NWO key characteristics:
Physical and physiological is the nature of man. This nature as an excellent outcome of evolution determinates your existence, providing you with a mainframe of various, undefined and personal identity of your choosing. Libido dominance is inescapable as a natural result of biological life, endorsement of it is highly required and presents itself as the only sane choice, because hedonistic approach to existence emerged and is recognised as one of your natural rights. The word (logos) and will of majority is unquestionable and subordination to it presents itself as a requirement for your participation in life. Only individual satisfaction, within material plurality is possible and subjectively attainable.

O(old)WO key characteristics:
Metaphysical is the nature of man. Biology and physics are a form of unpleasant consequence of your choices, as such are unquestionably considered your fault and a reason for your feeling of guilt. Misery as your default state of existence shouldn't be considered as shameful but rather as a motivation for your personal journey towards reason and logic (Logos). Your only natural right, that is freedom, inescapably guides to your torment and damnation and as a result, total subordination to logos presents itself as a requirement for attaining the ultimate truth, effecting in a state of commonly acknowledged satisfaction.    

[TECSHARE]

What about the uwu ?

[KingScorpio]

nwo will basically end up being a bankster scam, there will be the money printing banksters and the money earning cattle

rulers and slaves like always.

[merchantofzeny]

This is honestly the first time I seen anyone use this "Old World Order" term. First thing that comes to my mind is religious conservatism.

Anyway, unless you belong in the elite group, you're a peasant and your opinion doesn't matter whatever "order" is in place. That has always been the case. Even the Code of Hammurabi has preferential rulings towards the upper-class. Today it's not as blatant, but it's still there.

[poptok1]

Anyway, unless you belong in the elite group, you're a peasant and your opinion doesn't matter whatever "order" is in place.

That's definitely true and by old I wasn't referring to something that was, at least not recently. Of course religious and to be exact Christian order comes to mind but, it isn't exactly unique however strongly supported by the Logos of Christ. From historical standpoint,  said order was finally recognised and formulated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon at the middle of 19th century and in fact never implemented (maybe except early colonies of America) as various cultural revolutions were "invented" to distract the public from exposure to the ultimate truth. Probably full implementation isn't possible today, with the phony monetary system and "revolutionised" population the rebellion to liberty is doing stronger than ever. It will remain as tormenting ideal that I was mentioning earlier.