To advocate a New Order was to seek freedom and respect for peoples without prejudice, and to seek a stable basis for the existence all peoples, equally, and free of threats.

In this quote, Hideki Tojo outlines his vision for a New Order, which he describes as a system that seeks freedom and respect for all peoples, free from prejudice. He emphasizes that such a new societal structure would create a stable basis for the existence of every nation, ensuring equality among them and eliminating the fear of threats or conflict. Tojo’s ideal is one where nations coexist harmoniously, with equal rights and opportunities for all, devoid of the inequality and power imbalances that often fuel wars and conflicts.

The idea of a New Order reflects Tojo's belief that global stability and peace could be achieved through mutual respect and cooperation between nations. This view was particularly significant during World War II when Tojo served as Prime Minister of Japan. His leadership aligned with the Japanese Imperial expansion, which, while framed as a pursuit of freedom and justice, was often criticized for its imperialistic and aggressive policies, which contradicted the ideal of equality and freedom he mentioned.

However, Tojo's New Order was not without controversy, as the very expansionist policies that Japan pursued during this time led to the oppression of many nations and peoples across Asia. The rhetoric of seeking freedom and respect was often in conflict with Japan's militaristic actions, which involved colonization, forced labor, and the suppression of local cultures and political structures. This contradiction illustrates the gap between idealistic propaganda and the harsh reality of war and occupation.

Ultimately, Tojo’s quote reflects the idealism of his vision for a new global order, where nations would be free from conflict and inequality. However, the real-world application of these principles under Japanese Imperialism was far from the peaceful, respectful world he described. The quote serves as a reminder of how political rhetoric can often differ from the realities of power and conquest.