Long before I understood geopolitics or global power, I was curious about the world beyond my own surroundings.

Between the ages of eleven and sixteen, I attended St Hilda’s, a Church of England girls’ high school just behind Sefton Park in Liverpool. Looking back, those years encouraged me to imagine different worlds, explore history and question the society we lived in.

As I grew older, I began asking bigger questions. How much of what we were told reflected the whole picture? Who shapes the world we live in, who holds the real influence, and what happens when global power shifts?

Eventually, I encountered a phrase that seemed to bring these questions together: the New World Order.

None Dare Call It Conspiracy: What Was Gary Allen Trying to Tell Us?

When I read Gary Allen’s None Dare Call It Conspiracy, published in 1971 and co-authored by Larry Abraham, I was struck by its central argument: understanding politics requires looking beyond public speeches to examine financial interests, influential individuals and networks operating behind the scenes.

Allen encouraged readers to ask who funds whom, who benefits from political decisions and whether seemingly unrelated events reflect shared interests. He argued that powerful financial and political networks sought to influence governments and centralise power.

His conclusions remain controversial, and specific claims must be assessed against evidence. Nevertheless, his questions about money, influence and accountability remain relevant.

More than fifty years later, the world has changed dramatically, but the relationship between political power and financial interests continues to deserve scrutiny. What happens when we apply these questions to today’s world?

The Iran War: Who Pays the Price?

Conflict involving Iran, the United States and Israel illustrates how international decisions can affect everyday life.

Disruption to the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for global energy supplies, can increase oil prices, shipping costs and inflation. Ordinary families ultimately feel the consequences through petrol, energy bills and food shopping.

Meanwhile, rising living costs leave many struggling to keep pace with inflation, while wealthier people often have greater opportunities to protect their assets, relocate or purchase property elsewhere.

But who holds the cards, and who pays the price?

Allen encouraged readers to question whose interests political decisions serve.

Today’s conflicts raise similar questions: what strategic interests are at stake, which businesses might profit, and why do ordinary people so often bear the financial consequences?

Profiting from conflict does not prove that someone deliberately caused it, nor does the existence of powerful interests demonstrate a coordinated plan. However, examining who benefits and whether governments are acting in the public interest is entirely reasonable.

When international decisions make ordinary people poorer while wealth offers others greater protection, we must ask how much influence citizens really have over the systems shaping their lives.

Social Media is replacing real life

Technology promises to make life easier, but at what cost? As AI, automation and digital surveillance reshape our world, are we sacrificing independence, community and genuine human connection for convenience?

Local shops become apps. Conversations become notifications.

Experiences become content. We’re more connected than ever, yet meaningful human interaction can feel increasingly rare.

Social media adds another layer. We scroll through filtered faces, perfect relationships and picture-perfect holidays, comparing our everyday lives with someone else’s carefully edited highlights.

We start living for the photograph, the likes and the approval, rather than the moment itself.

When being seen matters more than being present, something important gets lost.

Our attention becomes a product, our self-worth becomes a statistic, and the line between living our lives and performing them grows thinner.

And this raises a bigger question: who holds the power? A handful of digital platforms influence what we see, how we communicate and, increasingly, how we behave and even think’

This doesn’t require a grand conspiracy to be concerning. It simply demands that we question who benefits, what drives these systems and how much control we really have over our lives.

AI, Jobs and the Age of Abundance

Elon Musk has suggested that AI and robotics could create an age of abundance, with machines performing much of the work, goods becoming cheaper and people enjoying greater prosperity and free time. He has also discussed universal high income as a way for people to share in automation’s benefits.

But who will own the technology, and who will receive the rewards?

Work provides more than income. It offers structure, purpose, social contact and identity. If automation transforms employment, how will society protect these aspects of human well-being?

There are also concerns about powerful AI developing faster than our ability to understand, govern and control it.

We face very different possibilities: technology could reduce financial insecurity, or eliminate jobs while concentrating wealth and influence among those who own it.

Proposals such as universal basic income and universal high income offer different approaches to distributing wealth in an automated economy. Neither should be confused with the UK’s means-tested Universal Credit system.

For generations, the expected path was to find a job, earn money, buy a home and build a secure future. Rising living costs, housing pressures and economic uncertainty are making that increasingly difficult, while small businesses struggle to compete with large corporations.

Will technology give us greater freedom or make us more dependent on systems we have little power to influence?

Cash Is Becoming a Thing of the Past

Cash works without Wi-Fi, yet contactless payments, digital wallets and online banking are increasingly common.

Electronic transactions can leave records of our spending, while frozen accounts, system failures or inaccessible banking services can create serious difficulties. A completely cashless society could disadvantage people who struggle with digital technology and leave everyone more dependent on financial institutions and payment providers.

Digital payments offer genuine convenience, but cash provides privacy, choice and a practical alternative when systems fail.

We should not have to abandon it altogether. When convenience becomes the only option, choice is no longer much of a choice.

Digital ID and Facial Recognition: Smile, You’re Being Surveilled

Digital ID and facial recognition can simplify services and improve security, but they also raise questions about privacy and accountability.

Who accesses our information? How long is it stored? Could data collected for one purpose be used for another?

This doesn’t mean every digital identity system is sinister. It means safeguards matter.

Digital systems should have clear limits, strong data protection, meaningful oversight and alternatives for people unable or unwilling to use them. Access to ordinary services should not require unnecessary surveillance.

Technology should make life easier, not leave us feeling that we need permission from a computer to get through the day.

15-Minute Cities: Convenience or control?

The 15-minute city concept aims to place essential services, including shops, schools, parks and healthcare, within roughly fifteen minutes on foot or by bicycle.

It can support local businesses, reduce car dependence and make everyday life easier. However, concerns arise when urban planning is combined with traffic restrictions.

These issues should be distinguished: the concept itself does not mean residents are prevented from leaving their neighbourhood. Individual transport policies must be judged by their actual design and effects.

Not everyone can cycle to work or access reliable public transport. Disability, caring responsibilities, employment and location can make cars essential.

Greener cities are a worthwhile ambition, but they must accommodate residents’ practical needs. The question is whether changes genuinely improve people’s lives or create unnecessary barriers.

Public Health, Vaccines and Personal Freedom

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how quickly everyday life can change. Lockdowns, travel restrictions and vaccine requirements in certain settings transformed how people worked, travelled and socialised.

Public health measures can protect vulnerable people, but they also raise questions about consent, proportionality and government authority.

Were restrictions justified by the evidence? Were their benefits and harms assessed? Were emergency powers properly scrutinised and withdrawn when no longer necessary?

Questioning these decisions does not mean dismissing public health concerns or assuming every restriction represents an attempt at control.

It means recognising that extraordinary powers require transparent justification, clear limits and democratic oversight. Protecting public health matters, as does preserving the right to question authority.

Are You Ready for the New World Order?

Taken together, these developments reveal a changing society.

Our jobs are evolving, money is becoming increasingly digital, identities are verified through technology, relationships are mediated by screens and cities are being redesigned.

Each development has its own history, explanation and potential benefits.

Their existence does not prove that they are part of one coordinated plan. Nevertheless, they raise a common question: who holds the power, and how much control do ordinary people retain?

What happens when we depend on digital systems for almost everything, cash becomes difficult to use and secure employment becomes harder to find?

The answer is not to abandon technology or turn back the clock. It is to ensure that convenience does not come at the expense of independence, privacy and human dignity.

We need strong privacy protections, alternatives when technology fails, support for small businesses and opportunities for genuine human connection. Our worth should not be measured by online popularity, possessions or the image we present to strangers.

Systems should work for people, not expect people to adapt unquestioningly to every new system.

We’re Losing Our Old World

The old world wasn’t perfect, and technology has brought enormous benefits.

We can communicate across continents and access information in seconds. Yet the past also offered things worth protecting: local communities, independent shops, everyday conversations, financial privacy and the freedom to enjoy ordinary life without everything being mediated by a screen.

We shouldn’t have to choose between progress and humanity.

The danger is that we become accustomed to each small change without noticing the bigger transformation. Another service disappears, another task becomes digital-only, and something once optional gradually becomes essential.

Some describe this transformation as the beginning of a New World Order, a phrase associated with shifting global power and, in some circles, fears about centralised control. Claims of a coordinated global agenda require evidence rather than assumption.

Whatever the interpretation, we should ask who is shaping this new world, who benefits and how much freedom ordinary people will retain.

Perhaps the old world won’t disappear overnight.

Perhaps it will fade gradually until everything is faster and more automated, yet people feel less connected, secure and human.

A new world order is coming

We can embrace innovation while protecting privacy, accountability and freedom of choice.

We can modernise public services without excluding people who struggle with technology, create greener cities without ignoring practical needs, and benefit from AI without allowing its rewards to flow only to those who own it.

Ultimately, the question isn’t simply whether a new world is emerging. It’s whether we’re creating a better world to live in, or one that is merely more convenient while leaving us with less choice, connection and control.

Wars, shifting alliances, border disputes, technological advances and economic instability are reshaping the international landscape.

Understanding these developments means distinguishing documented facts from interpretation and speculation.

Allen offered one explanation of how political and financial power operates.

Rather than accepting or dismissing it outright, I want to examine his claims against the historical record and the events unfolding today.

For me, this is what makes the subject so compelling: looking beyond headlines, questioning the explanations we are given and understanding the forces shaping our lives.

Ultimately, the question is not simply whether we believe in a New World Order. It is whether we understand who holds power, how that power is exercised and whether ordinary people have enough information and influence to hold those responsible to account.