The WEF et al. don't have the power to force - only the ability to anticipate.
The NWO is not an agenda - it's an inevitability.
Technology (the internet et al) is totally disrupting every nook so society.
Not since the "advent" of fire has humanity seen this rate of advancement (i.e., it's like going 0 - 100 all over again, but starting at 100 and going to 1000 - if that makes sense).
The NWO is simply the result of an unprecedented technological revolution.
"Do you support the NWO?" is a false question.
The question needs to be: whom will the NWO benefit?
The NWO could benefit all of humanity.
Fire can be used to cook an egg or set a village ablaze.
It's our choice how AI et al. impacts humanity.
But it will impact humanity - and much much more than it has already.
If it's not a totalitarian world government that enslaves everyone except a tiny elite class, and if it doesn't control the smallest details of our lives, then it's not the NWO.
To be (living) implies within solution (process of dying); hence not being a quest towards outcome; but the struggle to resist origin. What if the few suggest questions to tempt the many to seek answers (progressivism)?
What if ones free will of choice cannot be shared; only the consequences of every choice?
Can you describe anything that those within (living) the natural order (process of dying) have added, that wasn't supplied to them by it?
What if artificial intelligence (suggested information) represents the inversion of natural knowledge (perceivable inspiration)? What if ignoring perceivable for suggested corrupts ones growth of comprehension within perceivable?
AGENDA; A'GENT, adjective - "acting power" implies RE'GENT; adjective - "reactive power"
As a reactive power (living) within an enacting power (process of dying) one a) represents the inevitable effect (reaction) of cause (enacting) and b) the temporary expression of an ongoing impressing system.
What if the existence of "not" (nothing) was suggested to you, as to tempt the ignorance of the perceivable ongoing origin (everything)?
Literally no.
It depends on what meaning you attach to "New World Order" term. This settled term and abbreviation have definite meaning of totalitarian woke globalist order current elites trying to implement on Earth in a hurry.
Obviously, there should be some kind of order on Earth benefitting all the humanity, that is significantly different from what we have now. Some could name it "new world order" too, because it obviously will be new, world and order, adding confusion in his talking points. To avoid that there should be used some other term, significantly different from settled one.
I hope TS just mean "Another World Order" or, say "Fair World Order", that is completely different from NWO in that sentence.
NWO is universally applied to the ZOG—the current evil organization seeking to enslave humanity as subsapient beasts for all eternity. “A world order which differs from this one” would technically be “new” but would also not be evil.