Ideological Landscape of the New World Order
Keywords: ideology, politics, religion
It has been emphasised here before, but deserves to be stated again in the introduction to this topic: the New World Order is huge, and extremely complex, with very significant regional variation. There is much more ideological diversity in the New World Order than we will describe here. However, in this article, we will look at the broad ideological categories active in the New World Order, particularly in the areas with which I have the most familiarity in northern North America, and globally.
This article will generally be organised from the most licit ideological factions operating with the full sanction of the New World Order, to the Order's most adamant opponents. As you might guess, the New World Order is such a massive fact of life in its territory, and such a massively ideological project, seeking to fundamentally dictate the basic facts of life, belief and power on a global scale, that it has taken over practically every ideological debate, with everything defined in relation to it.
The New World Order will tend to lump opposing ideologies together into a single group of enemies it calls 'trols' when talking about opponents in public. The word 'trol' comes from the English word 'troll' as in an internet troll who tries to upset people online. The modern meaning in Common, and in other languages which borrowed the word from Common, including NWO dialects of English, which borrowed it back, is approximately 'terrorist'. However, the actual authorities are very, very aware of the distinctions between groups and study them very closely, so there does exist more precise terminology even if the Order often doesn't dignify these groups by distinguishing them from one another in public
Licit Political Ideologies
Globalism, the official ideology of the New World Order, is of course itself an ideology, but it contains within it a number of compatible ideologies which are frankly and explicitly Globalist and which are considered licit and acceptable opinions about public policy and which frame political debate within the Order. The New World Order is an oligarchy stratified based on wealth, and at its upper levels, it contains rigorous and consequential political debate. This political debate takes place in gated online communities that are kept exclusive with large subscription fees, and sometimes even in forums directly descended from the democratic institutions of the previous age, like the Cascadian Parliament.
The ebb and flow between these elite factions can result in peaceful transfers of power at the State and Global level and have meaningful consequences for the direction of public policy. However, they take place between very circumscribed lines of adherence to overarching Globalist ideology.
It should be noted that the NWO elite is not terribly politically polarised. Within the pale of what is considered valid political belief, debate is spirited but generally civil, individuals tend to exist on a spectrum of belief, and there is significant potential swing in elite public support between the dominant factions.
Uluatritfisa literally means 'high rule belief'. It represents the authoritarian end of the NWO's licit political spectrum and parallels most closely with conservatism in a British context, although British conservatism is extremely different from uluatritfisa and British conservatives would bristle at the comparison. The name itself suggests that the root of uluatritfisas belief is elitism.
The basic uluatritfisa narrative is that the Global Collapse was caused in a fundamental way by democracy and that the bedrock Globalist principle of excluding non-Globalists from public life necessitates expunging all traces of majoritarian rule from public policy. Uluatritfisa emphasises the belief that the elites are the elites because they are genuinely better than everyone else and they enjoy their advantages by right. It emphasises steady, centralised authority and the highest levels of discretion. Discretion in this context means for every conceivable piece of information, determining the minimum number of people who need to know it and ensure it goes no further.
The uluatritfisaka tend to the be dominant faction throughout the Order, but this does vary State by State and over time, and the uluatritfisa are frequently forced to compromise. In terms of public policy, aside from the tendency to centralise power and withhold information even from other elites, which is only a tendency, mainstream uluatritfisaka are still very much part of the elite oligarchic culture. Uluatritfisaka tend to oppose expending public resources on the 'lower orders' while simultaneously seeking to extract more resources from them and limit their freedom. Uluatritfisa rule tends to feel very authoritarian, paternalistic and condescending from a general public perspective.
The advantage the uluatritfisaka hold is that their basic narrative of elite superiority is very appealing to the elite class which monopolise public life. Their weakness lies in the centralisation of authority and information. A core principle of the NWO's brand of Globalism is oligarchic rule, with an elite class of the 'right' people ruling together. Information and authority are supposed to be excluded from the masses but shared between the very wealthy in a deliberately constructed web of familial and corporate relationships. The NWO elite class feels extremely entitled to be aware of and involved in controversies and decisions, and tends to be reactive and suspicious of movements to centralise authority and hoard information. This gives their opponents and opening.
Affetritfisa would be understood in the world of open political debate within the New World Order as the 'opposite' of uluatritfisa, although of course from the point of view of those outside that very exclusive system, they are barely even two sides of the same coin. Affetritfisa means literally 'public rule belief'. The basic affetritfisa argument is that Globalism in general and the New World Order in particular exist to serve humanity. Therefore, the NWO elite rules on behalf of all humanity and public policy should seek to benefit the general public.
In terms of governing style they seek to be overtly collaborative and open amongst the elites, or at least to be so performatively, and to enact policies that they understand as improving public services for the 'lower orders' and loosening the screws a bit on public freedom. From a British perspective the affetritfisa are most broadly comparable to liberals.
The immediate reaction many Britons have on hearing this high-level explanation of affetritfisa is something like, 'That doesn't sound so bad'. It is important to stipulate that the affetritfisaka are far, far from being democrats, and advocating democracy is still beyond the pale in NWO politics. Indeed, the 'affe' in 'affetritfisa' really extends at most from the elite class to the educated professional class and certainly not to the whole public. To them, extending some political participation to the professional class counts as stretching the boundaries of radicalism.
From a general public perspective, affetritfisaka rule does tend to feel less oppressive and to involve less day-to-day difficulties that uluatritfisaka rule, so members of the lower classes who even have any conception of politics tend to prefer affetritfisaka rule. However, political activists will point out that in a way this is worse than uluatritfisaka rule, because under uluatritfisa you at least have a brutally honest idea about the nature of the state you're living under that might ultimately motivate people to fight back, but affetritfisa seeks to anaesthetise the public to the real nature of their condition without materially altering its true, fundamental nature.
The affetritfisaka are usually in the opposition in NWO institutions, although there is a sort of pendulum between elite support for uluatritfisa and affetritfisa, and more affetritfisas forces do come to power reasonably often, especially in certain states. One thing the affetritfisaka have going for them is the fact they have always been a significant power in the huge and influential state of Cascadia. Their disadvantage politically is the slight whiff of populism associated with them, the fact they are often associated with the young and more flamboyant, rabble-rousing politicians, and the overall fact they can be easily tarred for wanting to 'waste' resources on people who can be easily demonised amongst the elite. Their advantage is that when the uluatritfisa centralising tendency makes the bulk of the elite public feel suspicious that they are being excluded from important matters, the affetritfisaka tend to be more trusted to restore that all-important elite collaboration and transparency,
In particular, the elite has a deep-seated fear of the general public, and while that sometimes works in favour of the uluatritfisaka with their authoritarian approach, sometimes the affetritfisaka are able to argue that their softer approach actually defuses tensions and stabilises society, and that in particular they are the ones best positioned to maintain the allegiance of the all-important professional class.
The Uzren are the Greens - 'uzre' means 'green' in Common. The Green movement was an important contributor to the early Globalist movement. The three inevitabilities of Globalism are the inevitability of environmental collapse, the inevitability of war, and the inevitability of the destruction of humanity from these causes. The emphasis on saving the environment and ending war was highly attractive to many early Greens, who were often actually somewhat conservative in other respects for a movement generally considered to be left wing. The pre-Collapse environmental organisation Greenpeace, which wound up being an important member of the Globalist coalition, even has both pillars of human survival right in its name.
Many Green parties globally wound up developing and being taken over by a Globalist faction, and many Green parties with a continuous lineage to before the Global Collapse remain operative, licit, elite-run political parties right to the present day. For example, the Uzren have ruled Cascadia and sent Senators to the Global Senate a number of times over the State's history.
The Greens operate somewhat orthogonally to the uluatritfisa-affetritfisa axis that dominates most NWO politics, with members spanning the whole spectrum. That said, they tend to have somewhat of an affetritfisas slant, with important caveats.
Uzren accept all the tenets of Globalism, of course, as well as implicit but no less important beliefs about the importance of elite rule and elite economic advantage required to function as a licit political movement. Where they differ is that they place the good of the natural world over the apparent, short-term good of humanity, as they would frame it, arguing that the long-term good of humanity is not truly separable from a healthy and vibrant natural world.
What this means in practice is that while the Uzren will more often than not support public money spent on public services for the lower classes and no more oppression than is strictly necessary to maintain public order, like an affetritfisaka, they will place the interests of the environment, as they see it, above the interests of ordinary people. For example, the affetritfisaka might want to build a new wind farm to achieve more consistent electrification of a particular town, but the Uzren might oppose it to avoid the environmental disturbance required to install it. Any wealthy people in the area, of course, will have priority access to electricity regardless and not be personally affected by this debate, so the resolution may hinge on whether important corporate business interests would be benefited by the new electrical capacity, which may tip the uluatritfisaka towards one side or the other.
A common thread for religions which operate legally within the NWO is that they do not contradict or add anything to the basic political poles as outlined above, and they avoid presenting any kind of rival, independent globalising force.
The most normalised and accepted religions are Weism and Buddhism, as well as Taoism and Confucianism. These faiths are not really viewed by the authorities as actual religions, in the sense that they are viewed as compatible with scientific rationalism and political Globalism. Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism are particularly tolerated by the authorities, with many elite adherents. It is not at all embarrassing for an elite to matter of factly say they are a Buddhist.
Weists tend to lean towards affetritfisa. Somewhat in reaction to this, as the others tend to dislike the Weists, Buddhist officials tend to have more of an uluatritfisa bent. All, however, work within mainstream Globalism.
Then you have various individuals, groups and practises that might be best described as 'spiritualist', ranging from astrologers to naturopaths to traditional shamans who either fly under the radar or masquerade as science and generally operate openly and with complete impunity as long as they are careful not to criticise the Globalist order. Such practises often have elite adherents/customers who might frame them as harmless fun or choose to conflate them with science.
Shading into the more illicit territory is the collaborationist Abrahamic religious groups, especially the Jewish people and Christians. The NWO has a compliant antipope in Rome, and there are innumerable registered Protestant churches who are closely watched by the authorities and work carefully to stay on the right side on the law. This is reminiscent of how religion was managed in pre-Collapse China, which is in fact the model being explicitly followed by the Order. Islam tends to be more repressed overall, but there are collaborationist mosques.
Illicit Globalist Political Ideologies
There are a number of ideologies active in the order which explicitly self-identify as Globalists but which are considered subversive and unacceptable in public, or are actively illegal and criminalised. In this section, we will explore a couple of the major ones. Groups in this category will tend to be demonised as trols, although not to the same extent as religious groups and anti-Globalist political groups. In particular, Zra Uluan and even atuinfisaka are more likely to be framed as political bad actors than as out-and-out trols.
Na Atuinfisa - Humanism
Atuinfisa means 'human belief' and is directly translated into English as 'humanism' by atuinfisaka. Not all Atuinfisaka are Onpafisaka - not all Humanists are Globalists. However, the atuinfisaka we are concerned with here ardently claim they are. They may have discreet contacts with humanists who are not avowed Globalists, but atuinfisaka believe in the basic tenets of Globalism and want to make a Globalist order that respects the dignity of all humans and is not afflicted with the injustice, oppressions and inequality that they believe characterises the New World Order.
Humanists have certain affinities for the Communists in that they want a more equal society, and are often but not always explicitly Left/socialist, but atuinfisaka typically try to defend themselves as loyal supporters of the state who want to make it better from within, and that tends to preclude class war and a revolution ending in a classless society. They present a vision of society that might be described as 'the same but better'.
Specifically, atuinfisaka want to enshrine in law a human rights regime as was notionally accepted by the international order and the clique of more established powerful countries including Britain and the United States prior to the Collapse. They believe in freedom of expression, even for people expressing anti-Globalist beliefs, and they believe in some form of restored democracy with general public participation. The most radical atuinfisaka would even allow non-Globalist parties to participate in democratic elections.
All of this is of course beyond the pale for mainstream globalists. The easiest way to tar an affetritfisaka and send them fleeing from a more radical 'public good' position is to exploit the way that affetritfisa tends to shade into moderate atuinfisa against them. Affetritfisaka politicians are often forced into ritual denunciations of human rights in order to demonstrate their Globalist bona fides and avoid guilt by association.
To be clear, typical Globalist atuinfisaka are Globalists, they just have a different, somewhat kinder interpretation of Globalism. For example, while they would say that someone should not be prevented from practising their native culture and religion, they would generally believe that people should be encouraged (more gently) to give up their traditional cultures and religions and assimilate into Global culture. They see this as a clear good for humanity. They don't question the essential need for one, single Global government, and they would not agree with a right to self determination for peoples, even aboriginal people who are already the victims of brutal European colonisation.
Belief in atuinfisa is typically tied to education, so the centre of gravity of underground atuinfisa belief is the professional class. There are, however, secret atuinfisaka amongst the elite, deep under cover. They typically disguise themselves in public life as affetritfisaka, a fact that has not gone entirely undetected, and which has not particularly helped the affetritfisaka.
Atuinfisaka typically try and work within the system towards incremental improvement, eschewing violence. They don't have any true organisation that I am aware of other than careful and informal collaboration. Other dissident factions tend to regard them with contempt for their ineffectualness and perceived collaborationism.
Na Xafenfisa - Communism
Now, finally, we reach a dissident movement that means business. Communists are organised and have a clear goal to incite a class war to overthrow the New World Order and institute Global Communism. Communism is a complex movement with a lot of factionalism and a complex web of organisations operating underground with great care, but they are most definitely organised.
Communists refer to Communism as 'Xafenfisa' in Common, meaning 'common belief' or 'belief of the commons', and refer to themselves as Xafenfisaka. This is somewhat deliberately provocative, because the name of the Common language is of course na Xafen, and the Communists are deliberately trying to associate themselves with Globalist belief and subvert it, to claim to be the true, rightful Globalists. Whereas the authorities, in an attempt to counter this an 'other' the Communists, refer to Communism as 'Komunfisa', which doesn't mean anything in Common.
Not all Communists are Globalists, and these Communists might embrace the Komunfisas label to emphasise the distinction. But the mainstream of Communism, as I was able to detect it, is Globalist and has actually revised their ideology to reframe the New World Order takeover as a positive and necessary development on the pathway to global Communism - that the reason for the failures of earlier Communist movements was precisely because they were national, and that a necessary prelude to Communism, in addition to passing through a Capitalist phase, is a phase of Globalisation, so that people would no longer be blinded by their petty tribal struggles and their eyes would be cleared to see that the real struggle was the class struggle going on all around them and impacting all of humanity, and that in a state of brotherhood, the Global Proletariat would throw off the chains of oppression together,
Thus, Globalist Xafenfisaka enthusiastically embrace the Common language and most aspects of Globalist ideology, which they subsume into Xafenfisa. As much as possible, they eschew the old jargon of Communism and expound Xafenfisa in very plain Common - for example, they would not say 'proletariat,' they would instead say 'lekokas soxot', 'working class'.
It should be noted that the Xafenfisaka were not always on the outs with the rest of the Globalist movement. They were members in good standing during the Collapse and were betrayed and expelled when the Globalist movement was on the cusp of victory. They have deep, deep roots in the Globalist movement. Despite representing the working class (in Common, 'na lekokas soxot') their centre of gravity is actually amongst the professional class, 'na sifres soxot', which they also equate as part of the working class, but which I have argued elsewhere is actually quite distinct.
They are not afraid to resort to violence, which they see as necessary for their ends, and to undermine the current Order. To that end they will sometimes ally with members of other ideological movements. However, they do not actually want to destroy Globalism, and so they are not consistent allies for other groups, and also they have been burned by alliance before, the modern New World Order actually being case in point, and are reluctant to enter into any kind of stable arrangement with other dissident groups.
Naz Zra Uluan
'Naz Zra Uluan' means 'the true elites' in Common, and are not a movement per se - some might say they are a straw man or bugbear to bring out when the affetritfisaka need to push back against the uluafisaka on accusations of being too closely tied to the Humanists. The Zra Uluan are essentially elite factions that want to create dynastic rule in the New World Order under some strongman (or strongwoman, but the choice of gender here was deliberate as there is often a somewhat inexplicable streak of male chauvinism associated with this sort of belief).
While again some might argue that Zra Uluan, unlike atuinfisa, isn't a real movement, and it is true on a certain level that it represents more of an expression of the elites' fears than an actual entity, and it is also true that there is no public Zra Uluan movement right now and any attempt move the Order to dynastic rule under a specific family would be viewed as anti-Globalist and likely suppressed and punished, Zra Uluan is absolutely real as a realisation of the most extreme version of uluatritfisa coupled with certain individuals' and families' naked hunger for power.
Zra Uluan typically plays out as a dynamic within the arena of legitimate politics, with a healthy dollop of political and garden-variety crime. Such as it really exists, it is a constellation of different individuals' grasping for power, more of a phenomenon that spontaneously springs up from place to place and from time to time like mushrooms, and not a coordinated Global movement. I believe that there is probably no truth to the paranoid conspiracy theory of global Zra Uluan cells broadly cooperating to aid each other's efforts to hoard power.
Radical Greens - Naz Ratikys Uzren
Radical Greens go by many names, but some factions do call themselves Radical Greens, and it makes clear their position in the ideological spectrum, so we will use that phrasing here.
Regular Uzren are Globalist elites who prioritise the environmental pillar of Globalism over other considerations. They are viewed as a legitimate Globalist party and have complex interactions with the other main Globalist factions. The still have the normal concerns and social beliefs of a regular Global elite, which entails accepting compromises such as massive land use for renewable energy generation.
Radical Greens, on the other hand, are not recognisably Globalist, are almost never elites, and prioritise the planet over everything. They are hard to place - we have categorised them with the illicit Globalist factions, even though they strongly espouse the dissolution of the Global state and don't always advocate replacing it with a new Global order, because in that category they would be the least anti-Globalist faction. The are often fairly Commonised and embrace many facets of Globalist ideology such as rejecting ethnic identity and embracing the unity of humanity, and they don't strongly emphasise human rights.
Radical Greens can have some overlap with Nationalists, and often have significant overlap with the anarcho-libertarian spectrum, with the caveat that they believe in the use of force to protect the Earth and do not believe in human liberty to harm the Earth, and they can have overlaps with the Communists as well, and even religious groups. They can be all over the map. That said, their prioritisation of the planet over human concerns means they do not have really comfortable relationships with any other group.
The Radical Greens often employ violence to protect the Earth from immediate wrongs such as pollution, the destruction of endangered species, or advancing development, sometimes in the process harming local populations. They can seem similar to other groups of trols, such as when they attack a power station. However, where another trol group might attack a power station to undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the New World Order, the Radical Greens would do it to protest the destruction of dwindling wild habitat to produce electricity for human communities. They don't tend to attack civilians directly; unless they are seen as abetting the destruction of the environment, civilian casualties are more likely to be collateral damage.
Illicit Universalist Religions
Unregistered Religious Groups
Many religious people are part of religious groups that worship figuratively or even literally underground and are not registered with the authorities. They typically proselytise cautiously, but do not necessarily have much of a political agenda and often are more focused on spiritual matters. These groups span the gamut of religious beliefs and range from new to ancient, but because of the need to operate secretly, are generally disconnected to some degree from their co-religionists and may consequently have some drift or degradation in their beliefs from place to place. They may operate in somewhat of a grey area where it isn't technically legal for them to operate, but the authorities don't try very hard to stop them either. Often the major factor driving them underground is the personal, professional and even legal damage members would suffer if their faith were widely known.
These groups are in the 'universalist' section, even though many or most are not Globalists, because they avoid more severe persecution by avoiding direct attacks on the Globalist state and generally have a universalist rather than nationalist world view. They typically operate within society as it is and try to focus on their faith and community and avoid politics and violence. Overlaps between such groups and more activist extremist groups are typically on an individual rather than group level.
Groups in this category are likely to be framed as scofflaws or suspicious characters rather than as full on trols, unless they have an overlap with a more dangerous group. They are more likely to be ridiculed than feared.
Radical Global Christianity and Islam
These factions are not Globalist per se, because they would reject the tenets of New World Order Globalism. However, here we are considering factions which while not Globalist are pan-humanist and universalist in their outlook and goals. They accept the necessity and desirability of the Global state, typically with a language other an Common as its global lingua franca, of course (usually specifically Standard or Classical Arabic in the case of globalising Islam) but under the supremacy of a specific religion. The New World Order characterises groups in this category solidly as trols.
Ironically, there are innumerable would-be world conquerors in this genre, all believing that their hopeless fight is made possible by the grace of God. The New World Order claims that Pope Benedict from the true Holy See in Quebec City is leading such a movement on behalf of the underground Roman Catholic Church, and some versions of the story say that Benedict wants to force everyone to speak French or even Latin, but I have been able to find no evidence to support these stories, and I believe they are just propaganda.
However, extremist, would-be world-conquering religious groups are all too real. They typically fall in the category of what the New World Order calls 'trols', and the are often extremely brutal and violent. It is distressingly common to hear of atrocities like entire villages where all the men have had their hands chopped off in punishment for perceived collaboration with the NWO state by Christian or Muslim insurgents, of either the globalising or nationalist variety. I have been able to directly confirm a couple of these incidents, so this is not pure NWO propaganda, although certainly used for propaganda purposes by the NWO.
The last category we will look at are ideologies that specifically reject the tenets of Globalism and seek to end Global governance. We will attempt to order these starting with ideologies that are only objectionable from the point of view of Globalist oligarchic hegemony and finish on groups that are genuinely problematic. The New World Order will lump everyone in this category together clearly as trols.
Groups in these categories often have broadly similar tactics, because they see an urgent need to overthrow the New World Order, and for that they need a few things. They need to cajole or intimidate members of their own community who would rather just try and get along as best they can in the current order and whose allegiance these extremist groups feel is owed to them, and punish those seen as defectors. For certain groups, they need to resist the efforts of the New World Order to create more ethnically mixed areas, so they need to terrorise immigrants.
And they need to discredit the Order in the public eye overall. Since the Order's claim to legitimacy is stated as coming from having provided food, water and electricity and establishing public health and public order, trols seek to discredit the Order by disrupting supplies of food, water and electricity, spreading disease and destruction, and perpetuating random and gruesome acts of violence on civilians, especially but not always those belonging to groups the trols don't like. The aim is to show that the Order is not capable of guaranteeing the benefits they promise as the bedrock of their legitimacy.
To be clear, not every group associated with one of these labels resorts to terrorism or does so in the same manner, but at least some resort to terrorism is characteristic of all of these categories taken as a whole.
Our national ideology here in Britain might best be understood in NWO terms as National Humanist. The NWO security forces would call National Humanists 'naz naxys atuinfisaka', which translates directly as National Humanists. National Humanists might call themselves many things in many languages, but 'National Humanist' is actually a term many use for themselves in English.
National Humanists are distinct from atuinfisaka in rejecting the Globalist state and wishing to reinstate national self-determination of some kind. This can vary from those who wish to restore precisely the pre-Collapse order, formerly a dominant position but a minority of National Humanists in the NWO today, to those who espouse some form of right to self determination for 'peoples'. Otherwise, they espouse the usual Humanist call for a reinstatement of traditional human rights and restoration of democracy.
In addition, National Humanists are urgently concerned with the preservation of human cultures and languages. Because they see languages and cultures as under threat and rapidly diminishing, National Humanists see a heightened sense of urgency and are much less likely to be peaceful in their methods than atuinfisaka, although they are much more likely to avoid the worst excesses of brutality than others detailed in this section. They view the overthrow of the state as essential to humanity and deeply urgent and morally mitigating towards resorting to violence.
Atuinfisaka are sometimes but not always concerned with the preservation of distinct human cultures and languages, too, but tend to take a soft line, such as freedom of determination and active government support for groups who choose to live according to or work to preserve a traditional culture, but they don't view it as a top priority, which is why they don't view the crumbling status of these societies as an emergency worthy of seeking the overthrow of the Global state, and again they tend to actually be avowed Globalists who view the Global state as a fundamentally good thing just in need of reform. This forms the basis of the National Humanist critique of atuinfisa.
National Humanists can have some struggle navigating conflicts in their values, because not all distinct peoples had a sovereign State pre-Collapse, and not all or even most land areas were inhabited discretely by one distinct people eve pre-Collapse, let alone today. They struggle to explain what the success of their program would mean for the heavily mixed populations of today and shy away from solutions that would make their program viable, such as movement of populations (i.e., ethnic cleansing) to create viable majority-population homelands. This forms the basis of the atuinfisas critique of National Humanism.
National Humanists are part of the overall Nationalist continuum, a broad array of different groups and political ideologies who oppose the Globalist order and want to restore some form of the pre-Collapse order, or pursue an unrealised national project that even predates the Global Collapse, a classic example of this being Kurdish nationalists. Nationalists sometimes have high ideological goals with a global outlook, but often they are very narrowly focused, 'Freedom and land for my people, and to hell with everyone else.' They are distinguished from National Humanists as well by not espousing all or even any of the pre-Collapse ideals of democracy and human rights.
These groups are numerous, often fractured even within the nationalist community advocating for a particular nation, and typically but not always violent, especially towards members of their own community seen as selling out to the authorities or members of other communities moving into territory they want to claim. Attacks specifically on immigrants are usually perpetuated by nationalists.
Religious groups without an over-arching pan-humanist goal are often lumped into this group, and many nationalist groups have an explicitly religious dimension to their identity and ideology that might be primarily nationalistic. There are also traditionally Left/socialist strains of nationalist that do not fully identify as communist, and nationalist communists. Nationalism can also shade into ideologies about race.The New World Order calls this set of ideologies 'naxfisa', and they do not make a distinctions between people who did and didn't have a pre-Collapse state and aboriginal versus colonial societies when employing it.
Anarchists and Libertarians
There is a whole rainbow of slightly different shades of political groups that view most or all authority as illegitimate and unnecessary and who flout the law and sometimes engage in political violence with an aim towards holding back the advancing tide of growing state power, as the Order's totalitarian capability steadily grows with the slow recovery of the global economy. The Order security forces call them collectively 'ikytrítfisaka'.
Ikytrítfisaka are hard to pin down, by their nature they are not very organised or necessarily extremely consistent in their beliefs, although they count amongst their numbers some sharp intellects and fall back on a rich intellectual tradition. They tend to reject Commonisation, prefer to use natural languages, and be associated with the ikmétus soxot, or 'rootless class', where they are often associated with the underground schools operated by countercultural rebels at this layer of society.
Towards the more libertarian end of the spectrum, they are actually more likely to be found associated with certain nationalist groups whose ideology centres on ideas of 'liberty'.
We will finish off this section with the group who are in my opinion the worst of the worst and the least defensible of the New World Order's opponents, white supremacists, or 'zilus tritfisaka' as the NWO security forces know them, often 'zilusyn' for short. They are a holdover from pre-Collapse racial ideology tied to the era of European colonisation, genocide and enslavement and the ideologies constructed to justify it. While that ideology recognises a number of other 'races', there are no exact modern equivalents to white supremacists amongst other groups. Sadly, this is an ideology that we know is not unknown in modern Britain.
White supremacists believe in the existence and superiority of a 'white race', defined broadly as relatively pale-skinned people of European descent, but sometimes defined more narrowly, or less commonly more broadly. They may be associated with religious groups, and regardless of whether they are or not, tend to share the antipathy of these groups towards sexual and gender minorities and women in a position of authority.
Otherwise they have a lot of overlap with nationalist groups, but particularly, white supremacists want to create 'white homelands' and often are or claim to be agnostic about specific matters of language, religion and culture. They want to subordinate those they see as members of 'other races' to 'whites', and sometimes they even have a Globalist bent, with some advocating not just for overthrowing the New World Order but for replacing it with a white-ruled Global government. Their ideological justifications for these positions are very elaborate and also quite mind-bendingly dishonest and sickening, so we will not dignify these beliefs with a complete exposition, other than to characterise their goals.
White supremacists are usually found anywhere with a significant 'white' population, and I ran into them a few times in North America. They sometimes form discrete groups, and other times infiltrate opposition factions with a different focus such as nationalism to quietly spread their ideology. Groups which blend white supremacy and nationalism are referred to as 'zilus naxfisaka' by the New World Order, 'white nationalists'.
The ideology of the modern Free State of Quebec is complicated and nuanced, but might be best described as 'white nationalist' when looked at overall systemically.