Only a month ago, I wrote a two-part piece on the New World Order – an intellectual exercise, or so I thought, a thought-experiment, a what-would-happen kind of thing if and only if. The events since, not to mention the hidden implications of fellow Blogcritic Ms. Reidhead’s article, have convinced me beyond a doubt that what I was entertaining then as a remote possibility was quickly assuming the dimensions of an impending reality.
“Welcome to Star Trek: The Next Generation; it’s sooner than you think,” was the line I used. A catchy phrase, I was congratulating myself. Well, I no longer think it’s either catchy or funny, or any of the above. Which just goes to show the difference a month can make.
Since the Eighties, the hidden theme of American politics has been the growth of corporate power. The political responses were many and varied. Some looked the other way, taking the path of least resistance. Others, of more questionable moral ilk, viewed this development as an opportunity to enrich themselves through shady deal-making and exchange of quid pro quos — the practice of lobbying, an integral part of American political landscape, providing the excuse. Others yet, the most sensible of the bunch, waited on the sidelines anticipating a showdown.
And a showdown it was going to be, since you can’t serve two masters at once; for as the global conglomerate was gaining in power, enabled by crooked politicians and public officials, the power of the government to control the abuses and set the tone for the nation was quickly on the wane. The culture of corruption permeating all levels of business and government and the resulting collusion between public and private interest couldn’t continue indefinitely. Sooner or later, a sense of decency and moral outrage were bound to prevail. The corporation and business interests had to be made subservient if the government — the idea of polity — was to recoup its rightful authority in all matters affecting national interests. It was only a matter of time, I was certain, and I looked forward to this showdown with great hope and expectations.
Well, it never came to that. The corporations overreached, rendering the whole scenario null and void. A perfect opportunity, you might say, for the government to take over the reins and re-establish itself as the rightful master. Which is why I viewed the present crisis as a godsend: it produced the requisite kind of result by bringing the business world to its knees without bloodshed or ugly confrontation. Now I have second thoughts.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Doug Hunter
It does feel almost inevitable, that the world has been continuously moving to consolidate power, and that it's logical end is one world government. The tipping point will be when a world body gains the ability to tax, in the name of some grand cause, poverty or global warming perhaps. That tax money will buy power and influence which will not be able to be resisted in the absense of much bloodshed. In the same way the US federal government has eroded states, rights and found a way to exceed it's mandate in almost every area, the world body will do the same thing to it's nation-states.
2 - roger nowosielski
Yes, I'm afraid so, Doug. And tell you the truth, I don't see how we can stop it.
3 - pablo
I cant help but see the irony to all you naysayers out there about the New World Order scenerios that I have been talking about for over a year. It is now coming to fruition unfortunately. It is not an accident, but a CONSPIRACY. By the way for all you doubters out there 9/11 was part and parcel of this whole globalist agenda, 9/11 being an inside job that is.
For those of you that do have an open mind and are not afraid of looking at something that is uncomfortable, I suggest the following books"
"Tragedy and Hope" by Carroll Quigley
"The Ascendancy Of The Scientific Dictatrship"
by
Phillip Darrell Collins and Paul David Collins
"Terrorism and the Illuminati - A Three Thousand Year History" by David Livingstone
"The Anglo-American Establishment" by Carroll Quigley
"Wall Street & the Rise of Hitler" by Anthony Sutton
"Rule By Secrecy" by Jim Marrs
"The True Story of the Bilderberg Group" by Daniel Estulin
Enjoy!
4 - Jordan Richardson
Gosh. I wish I could be as paranoid and frightened as you guys, but I just have too much shit to do.
5 - pablo
Okay Jordan whatever you say buddy. :)
6 - Christopher Rose
I don't understand what all the fuss is about. A new world order is obviously needed - just look at the state of the world if you have any doubts about it - and it needn't be a bad thing; it is a question of how things can be arranged for a better future, not something that should be automatically feared.
7 - pablo
Chris,
I know you don't understand what all the fuss is about, but I do.
8 - Jordan Richardson
Frankly, none of this rhetoric frightens me:
“Global problems demand global solutions.”
They do.
“What affects one, affects all.”
Absolutely.
“We’re all in this together.”
We are.
Call me crazy, but maybe humanity's old divisive ways of conducting itself has worn thin in a changing world. With technology, art, science, and so forth bringing us closer together, maybe it's time we embraced the closeness instead of fearing The Other.
See, Pablo has worked himself into a corner based on a line of loosely-threaded fiction. His worldview is based on the ideology of New World Orders, of secret societies, of boardroom meetings with cigar-chomping villains plotting how to rule humanity, and so forth. He cites authors that discuss global enslavement, global governments, and so forth. Nowhere in the scheme of things is the notion that a global system of accountability isn't a bad idea in principle. That notion, after all, doesn't sell many books.
What does sell books and what does make for interesting reading is the notion of secret societies scrambling for power over the course of thousands of years, biding their time presumably for this moment (or maybe the next one), and revealing their "true" selves to a world of confused and unprepared people. We'll all be taken by surprise and Pablo, from his computer no less, will be able to offer the proverbial "I told you so."
Such is the fantasy.
The reality is a bit different. The reality is that we ARE in a global mess. We are linked. And we need to be in this together if we expect to get out of this together. That doesn't mean a "One World Government" in the sense that these fantasy writers propose. It doesn't mean a system that is subsequently handed over to the Stonecutters of The Simpsons. As Chris said, it doesn't have to mean ANY of those poorly-constructed fictions.
Instead, things can be arranged for a better future. Isolating ourselves is not the answer anymore. We face nuclear threats and environmental catastrophe. We need large scale answers to our problems, no question about it. And we need to understand that we are all HUMAN BEINGS first, Americans (and so on) second.
So go ahead, ladies and gentlemen. Have your fantasies, but know that they are couched in a deep, distorted fiction designed to enslave its victims in a cycle of fear, paranoia, selfishness, and cowardice. But at least, at the very least, have the courtesy to allow the rest of us to work out our own solutions should we choose to try work together as one species for a change.
9 - Jordan Richardson
Also:
"It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it."
- Aung San Suu Kyi
10 - Doug Hunter
"But at least, at the very least, have the courtesy to allow the rest of us to work out our own solutions should we choose to try work together as one species for a change."
Perhaps you enjoy being an unelected bureacrats bitch and having every aspect of your life dictated to. You have the freedom to work together with the likeminded now on anything you want. Have at it, form foundations, charities, organizations to carry out your work. Oh wait, those don't have the POWER to force people who don't agree with you to participate. That is what you seek, control and power over others to force your ideology on them.
Drop this bullshit that you aren't allowed to work together, because last I checked you lived in a relatively free country as I do, and admit that it's about controlling others and forcing them to work for you. Or maybe you have too much fear and cowardice to speak the truth out loud.
11 - roger nowosielski
Jordan,
Never mind the past and U.S imperialistic history. It wasn't right and we can all agree. The point rather is - all of us will suffer. Reread Orwell, for crying out load. Aspects of 1984 have already arrived but not the totality. It is going to be a totalitarian society - the totalitarian world, in fact.
And that's the irony, that's the chain of events inexorably leads us in that (and no other direction), because fixing the world's problems will take no less than that kind of solution.
The way I see it, capitalism (unaided) had run out of steam: it had spent itself. While it was still functioning, it provided the necessary opposition to the powers of the government. But now the government has got the green light, and there're hardly anything to stop it from amassing greater and greater powers. And power is always intent on adding unto itself: that's the nature of things. Yes, corporate statism is the look of the future, and believe you me, you're not going to like it.
Try to think about this in terms of concepts, not as a Canadian or an Australian vis-a-vis the ugly American. All these differences between us, which I for one cherish, are going to come to naught. It's going to one big blah - a whole mass of humanity undifferentiated and under one thumb.
Is that your idea of a rosy future?
12 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
As much as I agree with Jordan that Pablo is quite the extremist & that he portrays everything as some sort of "cover-up" or conspiracy[Especially that 9/11 BULLSHIT]. I think Jordan is forgetting that there have been plenty of actions overseas that have taken place in the guise of National Security & Foreign Policy. Just like the supposed breakdown of the KGB in Russia. I guess, I just don't see how forcing everyone to follow the ideas of a few will solve any problems!
13 - Cindy
And that's the irony, that's the chain of events inexorably leads us in that (and no other direction), because fixing the world's problems will take no less than that kind of solution.
Is it possible that you're scaring yourself Roger?
As far as leaders using the words 'New World Order', there are plenty of videos of people using the words--from George Bush (the elder) to Noam Chomsky. They've been using those words for years. This is not evidence that the cat's out of the bag.
For example, the particular speech you linked to where Brown discusses the new world order was uploaded to youtube a year ago, not last week.
I think the speech you wanted was the one he made after the G20 summit. And even in using the words there, Brown isn't saying anything new.
14 - roger nowosielski
I think Brian the scary thing is you don't have to believe in conspiracies. It would seem the chain of events is leading us in that direction - the law of unintended consequences, for lack of a better word.
15 - roger nowosielski
It's the circumstances that have changed, Cindy. The time is ripe. There is no viable opposition to the growth of the government - just try to understand the events in that light. And the present crisis is all the justification that there need be. No, I don't think I'm scaring myself, just trying to see the world realistically.
It won't be the end of the world, just not very exciting, I'm afraid. We're all going to be molded after the same pattern - well-behaved and sedated subjects with no distinct personality or individuality of our own. Somewhat of an exaggeration, I admit, but not by much.
You should re-read Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, the foretaste of the future, or George Orwell.
16 - pablo
Hay Dave are you around bro? Alex Jones had on Michael Bednarik today, I thought you might want to catch the great interview man, infowars.com
cheers
pablo
17 - Christopher Rose
I agree with Pablo and Roger that if an overly controlled and controlling global tyranny took hold, that would be a very bad thing, although not as bad as the nightmare scenario of the excellent Terminator movies.
However I profoundly disagree with them both in that I don't see events as even close to heading that way, nor do I have any reason to think that they will.
I don't think either of them even has a case; all I see here is fear and pessimism.
18 - Cindy
I'm not so sure I've seen you make a practical case for this NWO idea, Roger.
The public has always inadvertently supported the problem, this isn't a new thing. It works through patriotism, through blind acceptance, through failure to question, etc. etc. How much do people really question? I don't see that people question all that much.
Let me try out this idea. The public--JohnQ middle-class benefactor of Capitalism, worldwide--has always propped up the Capital elite. The culture inculcates us from birth to accept this state of affairs.
This all works fine, as long as JohnQ's needs are getting met. JohnQ has historically felt prosperous and cooperative and one with the Capitalist system as it helped promote the acquisition and collection of wealth.
JohnQ was feeling prosperous, able to 'advance' in this system. But what if this changes?
The powers that be will try, I think, to turn it around and make JohnQ happy again. It is imperative to do this, no matter what way I consider it.
They way I'm thinking, it is the middle-class which holds everything in place. If the middle-class comes to feel unhappy and oppressed they can turn against the elite. They can join with the rest of the people who understand oppression. If this happens a change of organization can begin from with more bottom up control.
So, this talk of new world order strikes me as governments acting together to try to save Capitalism, to not upset JohnQ. We outnumber them.
Look at the Madagascar army. They turned against the government and joined the people.
19 - Cindy
My point is, there is not just one single way things can resolve themselves as you suggest. It is by no means resolved.
I have more of a problem if the middle-class is mollified. Because then the people on the bottom are still stuck. But never fear Rger, you aren't one of them.
They either save Capitalism and therefore you or they don't and therefore the people may gain direct control.
20 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Well, Roger, in this case I would have to agree with Cindy. I think the actual outcome would be scarier than a conspiracy theory. Ultimately, I think it would come down to the people in this country revolting, in which case,if you go by events like the riot in LA, the war in Iraq would look dwarfed in comparison.
21 - Cindy
Oh and Roger, if you need a reference for some of what I'm saying, I'll recommend the words of Alan Greenspan on the subject.
22 - roger nowosielski
Cindy,
Believe me, I don't cherish the role of being the bearer of bad news, not do I suffer from fear or paranoia (because's I'm not going to be around to witness this) but let's look at it realistically. I'm going to present bullet points:
1) History never stands still. And though some people speak of cycles, it's kind of misleading. Yes, there are cycles, but the new forms are always evolving: forms of government, etc. So we can't go back to the past, because whatever may have worked in the past, it was under different conditions; it ain't gonna work today. And you do have to admit that the kind of situation we're facing today is unprecedented in terms of globalization, interconnected, and a sense that we're all more and more dependent on one another. The world has become a global village, and in response to that, the form of government and institutions will naturally have to change to deal with these new realities.
2) You're saying there may be other scenarios. Of course. But the West has been setting the tone for the world at large for at least two centuries or longer, since the Industrial Revolution. Even the Third World counties have tasted the fruits of the West and, for all the resistance on cultural and other grounds, it has become a pattern, a model. Heck, even China and Russia, socialistic regimes that they are, are pursuing the same goals as the West (although through different, socialistic means). So there's no question in my mind that - barring any major confrontation between nation-states - the West shall remain the leader in the direction the world will be going and in shaping the future.
3) You speak of the middle class. Well, the middle class is basically disappearing, because prosperity is no longer the condition we can take for granted (see my last article). So even in America, there has been, of late, a great deal of leveling in terms of income, education and culture. So it's not exactly the case that the underdeveloped (Third World countries and their populations) are catching up with us; it is, rather, that even the populations of the West are slowly descending to less desirable levels - to approximate the Third World. Remember how everyone is indistinct in the Philippines. Poverty and/or lack of prosperity is the greatest leveler; and I believe that's the direction of the future - not going up but descending downwards. Indeed, for all the advantages of the EU, there is something that's being lost when people lose their national identity and become a part of a greater collective. (Remember, we should cherish multi-culturalism, not eliminate it.)
4) A related point. The poor do not revolt; as long as their basic needs are met, they become sedate. (Again, think of the Philippines.)
Most revolts were freedom-related movements, when one nationality felt oppressed by another (Scots or Irish, e.g., fighting for their independence from England.) But when the idea of nation-states is slowly becoming obsolete, the same will go for the "liberation movements"
5) The elites you're talking about will become invisible and benign (in a manner of speaking). Capitalism and the means of production will be a joint venture under the control of the State, and so will be the appearance of a nanny government. The bureaucracies will be in control, and you don't rebel against bureaucracies; you can only be pissed at them and bitch.
6) Don't discount the thinkers who have been warning us against this form of oppressive and totalitarian government - like Foucault, Hannah Arendt, Jean-Francois Lyotard - depending on surveillance and bureaucratic structures as means of control. They'll look benign, but they'll be anything but.
7) And lastly, no, I don't have an idealistic streak. Throughout the history, people were oppressed one way or another, and there is no reason to think that this pattern will ever be broken. Forms change but not the basic relations between those who have power and those who have not. If you're looking for the Kingdom of God on this here earth, you had better look to an afterlife.
23 - roger nowosielski
Brian (#20),
I don't see where you getting that idea. I never argued for any conspiracy theory. I just see it as a natural consequence and the solution to our problems here and now.
24 - Aetius Romulous
Finance and economics are global, politics is not.
Eventually, there will come a point where 150 separate national entities can no longer function correctly because of the power of global economic consolidation. Something will have to give. We either stick to our "guns and religion" and peel back global financial efficiencies, or bring our ideology in line with our technology.
It is already a "New World Order" in as much as the die has been cast, and finance is already there - and we are all benefiting as we have for some time. The friction will come when old and tired dogmas have to be pulled along, kicking and screaming.
For many extremists over on the American "right", they will always have the words and concept of the NWO to shadow box, punching themselves out while the fact of the issue rolls out under their feet and into the future.
I prefer to simply call a duck, a duck - and move on.
25 - Dr Dreadful
There was a new world order after the invention of agriculture, after the collapse of the Roman Empire, after the Black Death, after the defeat of Napoleon, at the Industrial Revolution and at the end of both World Wars, as well as on countless other occasions in humanity's long, turbulent history.
Politicians who talk about the 'New World Order' aren't referring to some dastardly plot to take over the Earth; they're referring to the ages-old cycle of economic/political systems disappearing and being replaced by new ones. In most cases, it's hyperbole.