Social theories, such as socialism, are largely based on the idea that the systems of society (institutions, laws, etc.) almost completely dictate the behaviors of the individuals within those systems. There is truth to the idea that the behaviors of individuals are greatly influenced by these systems through their traditions. (Traditions, as used here, should be taken to mean the practices of a group, whether formal or informal. It is assumed that these practices reflect the beliefs of the group.) Traditions, however, carry different meanings to people based on the symbols that each person and group attaches to those traditions. For example, some hold traditional beliefs because they hold tradition, in and of itself, to be important. This may often relate to the assumption of the wisdom of their elders and of ages. It is an observation of the precedent set by those before them, similar to the observation of U.S. courts to precedent set by previous judicial rulings (although this precedent may also take the form of the following observation of tradition).
Traditions may also be observed in a thoughtful form. In other words, those who are observing the tradition are not doing so without an understanding of the purpose, either direct or symbolic, of the observance of those traditions. When this is particularly the case, it presents a challenge to those who would reorder society in an attempt to shape their own ideological designs—that challenge is free will.
As advocates of social revolution attempt to re-create society according their own ideals, they are, in the process, destroying the ability of all others to peaceably live according to differing beliefs. A society that allows each to believe and practice their beliefs, so long as those do not infringe on individual rights, will find that all are able to live in freedom, who will allow others to live in freedom. Individual rights focus on our ability to be “free to” believe and practice an ideology, rather than to be “free from” someone else’s practice of a different ideology that does not infringe on our basic rights.
Social theories, however, do not see this possibility. The focus of adherents to these theories is the “peace” of all mankind. They believe that an individual cannot live in peace as long as there is conflict in the group. Although rarely stated, it is apparent from the various theories that a focus on individual rights provides for too many differing opinions, which inevitably result in conflict. Therefore, it is not enough to have an isolated community of like-minded people living out their philosophical ideals. This is almost certain to fail, according to social theorists, who see the greater social systems outside of this community as placing systemic pressure on this community to “conform” with the ideals of others in the “oppressive” greater social system. This necessitates, according to these theorists, a change in the social system at the greatest levels. Inevitably, this means a worldwide social change. This has been spoken of as a New Social Order, or a New World Order. The Oppression Paradigm is the term I have created to describe the ideologies that follow this pattern of belief.
The term “New World Order” is used more cautiously and rarely in current times, due to the multitude of negative responses to discussions of, and attempts at, creating this New World Order. This has publicly relegated the term (New World Order) and its accompanying ideals to the outcast shores of conspiracy theory—and certainly many outrageous theories about the New World Order abound. However, the fact that there are fantasized theories of the New World Order does not mean that people in our time do not still pursue this as a social ideal.
The problems with this world order are, perhaps, too extensive to address in any number of volumes. However, there are several basic realities, which would accompany the practical application of these social ideals, that are of vital importance. First, a worldwide social order is based on the collective, not the individual. In other words, the rights of the individual are secondary to the rights of the whole. Even in the earlier days of the United States—a society with incomparable individual liberties for most of its citizenry—there were instances of the common good outweighing the needs of individual citizens. These were—and were so intended—to be rare and exceptional. In creating a uniform and “cooperative” social order, subjugation of individual “rights” to the “common good” would, of necessity, become the standard.
Second, beliefs (religions, ideologies, philosophies) that are contrary to the desired universal social order would need to be eradicated. This reality does not differentiate between the methods used to eradicate these “competitive” (rather than “cooperative”) beliefs. These methods may include:
1) Ideological Reasoning—the “peaceful” solution that is preferred in most public discussions of the topic of social change. This is largely made up of the standard ideological discussions in an attempt to convince others of the correctness of this ideology over any other beliefs to the contrary. This is the source of standard conversion.
2) Ideological Warfare—the subversive methods used to infiltrate opposing ideologies and disguise the true objectives behind social changes. These methods are more extensive than can be contained in a single volume.
a) This method includes members of: religions, elected positions, parties, organizations, academia, etc., who promote particular policies or ideals in order to increase the acceptability of ideological changes over time. These may include members of such groups who became genuinely convinced of the needs for these changes, who were enticed to promote such changes for self-interest, or who became members of that group with prior intention of promoting change from within. The end goal of such movements is to transform the institution into one that promotes the social ideals of the intended world order, rather than an institution with a competing ideology. An important battleground in this area has always been the education of children and youth.
b) Also included is the use of similar (subverted) institutions, or multiple smaller institutions, to oppose and discredit, if possible, an opposing ideology and its institutions (e.g., a social change proponent within one Christian church calling another church or minister “unchristian” for not supporting the social change ideology).
3) Ideological Censorship—the silencing of opposing viewpoints using various means. This censorship may be through social or economic pressure (blacklists, boycotts of sponsors), media control (like-minded media outlets refusing to air or publish information about opposing ideologies favorably), government-initiated censorship (change in laws or enforcement to prevent publication or public discussion of opposing ideologies), and political imprisonment or exile (removal of the opposition from public view).
4) Extermination—when other attempts have failed; when the voices of opposition cannot be convinced, discredited, or silenced; when secrecy can likely be maintained in the act; or when enough power of force or opinion has been gained to prevent revolt at the act—those opposing the ideology of social change will be killed.
While many examples may be provided, it is likely that these descriptions have already led you to think of situations in near or recent history where each of these methods have been employed against individuals or groups. As this is a broad description, it did not provide detail about who would direct or accomplish each aspect, or how they would do so.
There is certainly mass appeal in worldwide peace, order, and prosperity, especially when it is sold with the guarantee of freedom and acceptance of everyone. This ideal has been borrowed from religious beliefs, particularly the millennial beliefs of Judaism and Christianity. In fact, ideologies that envision such a social, economic, and politic utopia generally belong to the classification of “millenarism.” When social theories are used within Christian or Jewish religion, it is the belief in a millennium that is used to sell the changes needed for the world order. Many differences are apparent between these beliefs, even when adapted to a Christian or Jewish religion.
The first notable aspect of the social world order is that there is no Messiah. Some have suggested that the creation of the social world order will help to usher in the millennial reign of Christ, or the Messiah, but most that originally preached this idea have abandoned the concept in favor of maintaining a focus on the temporal salvation of all mankind. Many theorists are not bashful to declare that the social world order is not about a spiritual millennium. The focus is not about individual salvation or individual actions. The focus is on collective salvation and collective actions. It has even been stated that anything less than social action (action as part of a group) is sin. Individual works are not seen as important, except as a group. No amount of individual works, even those works done for others, can bring about salvation for their soul. Only those works done as part of a group, in the service of the collective, or of the common good, will lead towards salvation. Salvation, however, can only come when the entire world is working for the common good, because without this, there is no world order based on peace and cooperation. Until this happens, there is only conflict and competition.
Another aspect of the social world order is that there will need to be, initially, an elite group of educated people to determine what is needed for the world order, as well as an elite group (perhaps the same group) of people to lead the world order. Without this leadership and distinct hierarchy it is considered impossible to bring about the social changes necessary. Power must be granted to this group of leaders, so that they can order every aspect of life to work towards the common good, or the good of the social order. Some social theories differ on this point, but most suggest that, after the entire world is organized under this social order, there will be no need for a government of any kind, since each person (remaining) will naturally want to work towards the common good, resulting in the absence of conflict and competition. These theories assume that the “benevolent” leaders of this elite class will then graciously fade into the background (thus further demonstrating their lack of understanding of human behavior).
There is one question that outside observers may have asked, and insiders constantly ask, about the many movements around the world that advocate for social change:
Who is going to make up the elite group of rulers forming the world order?
It should seem no surprise that we have found an endless supply of dictators throughout the world who are eager to adopt these social theories (which are the basis of the many forms of socialism) in advancing themselves into tyrannical power wherever they are able. In the name of social reform, they take control of and limit the various means of opposition to their efforts to create a New (Social) World Order. The principles of these theories are presented to the willing and ignorant, or forced on the unwilling, while any not willing to “support,” or who are “destructive” towards the “common good” are identified as the “oppressors” against the social order and are separated from the new society (one way or another).
The pattern has not changed, regardless of the form of social order, or ideology within the Oppression Paradigm, that is selected. In countries where more freedom had been previously established, the socialization has taken a longer period of time, depending on the amenability of the people to change their “worldview” to one that includes the Oppression Paradigm. Many of those who are opposed to the socialization of their respective countries consider many of the changes inevitable and are simply “slowing” the progress of socialism towards the ultimate goal of a New World Order. It cannot be forgotten that socialism is always about world government. Based on its own origins, it cannot be successful in isolation due to the systems that surround it. Most forms of socialism suggest that they are internationally cooperative. Advocates of these ideals give the appearance of working with the international “community” to bring about a “peaceful” socialism. Within this international “community” there is cold war. Individuals, governments, organizations, banks, and businesses are all jockeying for position to be at the top of the pile when the power of the “cooperative” social order grows.
These conflicts, between advocates of the New World Order, will also continue to result in wars, such as happened when a group of socialists in Germany attempted to ensure its place at the top of the order by creating a nationalist movement and overpowering the other players in the game of world domination through military force. The oppressors were identified and the Nazis made their attempt, but were premature in their attempt at creating a Nazi-dominated New World Order. It may seem ironic that competition within socialism (the “cooperative” movement) for power over the New World Order has created some checks and balances between States. Other nations have not been as daring to play their hand before the dealing is through.
Part of that deal is the further socialization of the United States. Key parts of socialization have already occurred, but too many freedoms still exist and too many people are still opposed to overt socialism and giving power to world leaders. Greater control over the American people is necessary to carry out the radical social changes needed in the United States. The tactics (methods) discussed earlier are constantly at work in an effort to destroy the institutions that are continuing to impede the spread of U.S. socialism, namely: religion (particularly Christianity), nuclear families, and the right to private property. Primarily, these institutions are protected by the U.S. Constitution.
 This relates to the grand debate of human development: Nature vs. Nurture. John Locke suggested that we are “blank slates,” equal in our birth and individual rights, but capable of developing character as we see fit. In other words, each individual (with equal opportunity) determines his own destiny. Jean Jacques Rousseau suggested that we are born innately good, but our good natures are overpowered by the evil influences of society. In other words, if it were not for deficits in societal systems, there would be harmony and complete equality (equal outcomes).
 However, it may be noted that nations are players in a larger game and are fighting for the role of second-in-command.
 Private property, as later described, provides the opportunity for perpetual self-sufficiency.
 The U.S. Constitution also provides for other means to protect these institutions, from free speech to the right to bear arms to representative government.